IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3495 of 2008()
1. CHIKKU @ SHANOOP,
... Petitioner
2. SHABAB.E.,
3. RIJESH.V., 32 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN
4. JASNA, 18 YEARS,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :28/01/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 3495 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009
O R D E R
Petitioners 1 to 3 and additional respondents 4 to 6 face
indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under
Section 366 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the
basis of a final report submitted by the police after due
investigation. Committal proceedings has been registered. The
order of committal has not been passed.
2. The crux of the allegations against accused 1 to 6 i.e.
petitioners 1 to 3 and additional respondents 4 to 6 is that they
kidnapped the 4th petitioner, a minor girl, who was in the custody
of her father, Addl. third respondent.
3. The petitioners and Addl. third respondent have now
appeared before court through their counsel to apprise the court
of the fact that all outstanding disputes between the accused on
the one hand and petitioner No.4 and Addl. 3rd respondent on the
other have been settled. The 4th petitioner has now married the
Crl.M.C.No. 3495 of 2008
2
first petitioner. They are leading a harmonious life. A child has been
born in the wedlock. The marriage has been approved by all
concerned, including the Addl. third respondent, i.e. the father of the
girl. The petitioners and the additional third respondent now pray that
all outstanding disputes having been settled and the additional third
respondent and the 4th petitioner having compounded the offences
allegedly committed there is no relevance or necessity for the
prosecution now to continue.
4. Addl. third respondent, the defacto complainant, has filed an
affidavit along with other petitioners (petitioners 1 and 2) to confirm
that he has settled the disputes and compounded the offences. Counsel
appears for additional third respondent.
5. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that this is an
eminently fit case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan
Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), Nikil Merchant v.
C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4)
KLT 417 (SC) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination
Crl.M.C.No. 3495 of 2008
3
the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against petitioners 1 to 3
and additional respondents 4 to 6.
4. In the result:
a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed.
b) C.P.70 of 2007 pending before the J.F.M.C. Kunnamangalam,
in which petitioners 1 to 3 and additional respondents 4 to 6 are the
accused, the third respondent/the defacto complainant and the 4th
petitioner, the girl who was allegedly kidnapped, is hereby quashed.
c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if
any, pending against the accused persons and their sureties shall be
disposed of in accordance with law.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm