IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4515 of 2008()
1. ASHIQ ,S/O. HYDER, POOKKUTH HOUSE
... Petitioner
2. HARIS BABU, S/O.ABDULLA,
Vs
1. SAMEER BABU , S/O.KUNJIMOHAMMED,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
For Respondent :SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :01/12/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4515 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of December 2008
O R D E R
Petitioners as accused 2 and 4 face indictment for offences
punishable under Sections 143,147,148,323 and 324 read with
149 I.P.C on the basis of the final report filed in crime No.31/06
of the Melattur police station. Altogether there were five
accused persons. Accused 1, 3 and 5 have already faced trial.
They have been found not guilty and acquitted as per Annexure
A2 judgment dated 05/08/2008.
2. Petitioners have now come before this court to
apprise this court of the fact that the disputes have been settled
between the parties and the sole victim, that is the first
respondent herein has compounded all the offences alleged
against the petitioners. The substantive offences under Sections
323 and 324 are compoundable and have been compounded.
The dispute is one which is purely private and personal between
the parties. No issue of public interest or public policy is
involved. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the
petitioners pray that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan
Crl.M.C.No.4515/08 2
Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287],
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008
(3) KLT 769(SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT
417 SC] may be invoked to bring to premature termination the
surviving prosecution against the petitioners which has now
become irrelevant and unnecessary. The respondent/victim has
entered appearance through counsel. The de facto
complainant/first respondent has entered appearance through
counsel. The de facto complainant/first respondent herein and
the petitioners have filed a joint application for composition duly
countersigned by their respective counsel.
3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer.
The learned counsel for the petitioners and the first respondent
pray, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said
prayer and I am satisfied that the parties have willingly and
voluntarily settled their disputes and the offences alleged being
purely personal and private between the contestants, the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as
enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan, Nikhil Merchant and
Crl.M.C.No.4515/08 3
Manoj Sharma (Supra) can safely be invoked to bring to
premature termination the prosecution against the petitioners.
4. In the result,
a) This petition is allowed.
b) C.C.No.752/08 pending before the learned J.F.C.M-II
Perinthalmanna in which the petitioners are the accused and the
first respondent is the victim/complainant is hereby quashed.
c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446
Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties
shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance
with law.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
Crl.M.C.No.4515/08 4
Crl.M.C.No.4515/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008