IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4099 of 2008()
1. MUHAMMED RASI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ANVER BASHEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/10/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 4099 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for
offences punishable under Secs.323 and 354 IPC. Cognizance
has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the
police. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned
Magistrate so far. Coercive processes have hence been issued
against the petitioner to procure his presence.
2. At this stage, the petitioner through counsel has come
before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that the de
facto complainant/victim has compounded the offences
allegedly committed by him. She is willing to report such
composition. It is prayed that directions under Sec.482
Cr.P.C. may be issued to quash the proceedings accepting the
composition.
Crl.M.C. No. 4099 of 2008 -: 2 :-
3. I am unable to understand the request. If the offences
are compoundable, I find no justification for the parties rushing
to this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings on the basis
of such composition. Why have the petitioner and the
respondent/de facto complainant come to this Court without and
before approaching the learned Magistrate. No satisfactory
reasons are advanced. However, in the course of submission,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is employed abroad and he is not able to appear before the court
below.
4. Why should the petitioner appear before the court below
to effect a compromise/composition? The decision in Baiju v.
State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 1082) is authority for the
proposition that the composition is an unilateral act and can be
resorted to by the complainant and it is not necessary for the
court to insist on the appearance of the accused to consider such
prayer for composition. Therefore, the fact that the
petitioner/accused is not available in India is not sufficient
reason for the parties not approaching the learned Magistrate.
5. It is then submitted that a warrant of arrest has been
issued and the same is pending against the petitioner. What is a
warrant of arrest? Warrant of arrest is a process issued by
Crl.M.C. No. 4099 of 2008 -: 3 :-
the court to procure the presence of the accused. Summons is
also one such process. When summons was not able to achieve
its purpose, evidently a warrant of arrest has been issued. The
purpose of both is only to procure the presence of the accused.
Where the presence of the accused is not at all necessary to
achieve the object/result of composition, I fail to understand how
the mere pendency of a warrant issued can stand against the
consideration of an application for composition. That cannot
also be a justifiable reason for this Court to invoke the
jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C.
6. The relief can be obtained before the trial court. If that
can be done, why should this Court not entertain the application?
There can be this natural query. But there must be an order and
discipline in proceedings. What can normally be achieved in
accordance with law by moving the subordinate court, the
parties cannot be permitted to seek from this Court by invocation
of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C.
The extraordinary inherent jurisdiction is to be invoked only in
exceptional cases. Such jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a
matter of course. This Court would be flooded with such
unnecessary petitions if the court starts entertaining such
applications without and before the parties move the appropriate
Crl.M.C. No. 4099 of 2008 -: 4 :-
courts which can grant such reliefs. For the said reason, I am
not persuaded to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C.
7. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
The respondent/de facto complainant can appear before the
learned Magistrate and report to the learned Magistrate that she
has compounded the offences. Thereupon, in the light of Baiju
such prayer for composition can be considered. The petitioner
also appear through counsel.
8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I
direct that the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner
shall not be executed till 10/11/08. On or before that date, the
complainant in person and the petitioner through counsel can
appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for composition.
Such application shall be disposed of in accordance with law by
the learned Magistrate.
9. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy// P.S. to Judge
Crl.M.C. No. 4099 of 2008 -: 5 :-