Abdul Nazar vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 28 April, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1416 of 2009()


1. ABDUL NAZAR, S/O. ABU, UDAYAMANGALA
                      ...  Petitioner
2. FATHIMA,S/O. ABU,UDAYAMANGALA PARAMBU,

                        Vs



1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLALAM
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

3. RESEENA,D/O.HASSAN, KODASERRY PARAMBU,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.K.A.ANGEL TREENA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :28/04/2009

 O R D E R
              S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                  -------------------------------
              CRL.M.C.NO.1416 OF 2009 ()
                -----------------------------------
          Dated this the 28th day of April, 2009

                          O R D E R

Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.263/2004 on the file of

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode,

wherein both of them stand indicted for offences punishable

under Sections 406, 498 (A) read with Section 34 of the IPC

on a charge laid by the S.I. of Police, Nallalam Police Station.

Crime in respect of the above case was registered on the basis

of a complaint given by the 3rd respondent, wife of the 1st

petitioner before the Court, and it was referred to the police

under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Petitioners now seek

quashing of the criminal proceedings in the above case

pending before the Magistrate court, submitting that they

have entered into a composition of the offences with the

defacto complainant, 3rd respondent.

CRL.M.C.1416/09 2

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

also the learned Public Prosecutor. A photocopy of the

agreement purported to have been entered into by the

3rd respondent, defacto complainant with the 1st petitioner,

her husband, settling the disputes between them, wherein, she

is stated to have undertaken to file joint petition for

withdrawal of the criminal case pending before the Magistrate

Court, is relied by the counsel for the petitioners for

termination of the criminal case pending before the

Magistrate against the petitioners. The apex court has held

that in matrimonial offences, if the parties have settled the

disputes, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to

quash the criminal proceedings, is the case of the counsel for

the petitioners to submit that once the parties have settled the

disputes, this Court is bound to recognize it and terminate the

criminal proceedings pending before the court. I am not

impressed by the submissions of the counsel. This court

cannot have an enquiry as to the genuineness of the

compromise purported to have been entered by the parties.

Further more, the accused in the police charge sheet case,

CRL.M.C.1416/09 3

have no right to insist for acceptance of the composition

entered with the defacto complainant especially where one of

the offences is found to be non compoundable. It is open to

the petitioners to approach the Magistrate, where the case is

pending, to seek appropriate orders on the basis of the

composition stated to have been made by the parties. I do not

find that this is a fit case, where the exercise of the inherent

powers of the High Court is called for.

Criminal M.C. is dismissed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE

prp

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

——————————————————–

CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 ()

———————————————————

O R D E R

———————————————————

23rd March, 2009