IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 3478 of 2008() 1. JOSEPH, 37 YEARS, ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC ... Respondent 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHUKKAD 3. K.C.ANTONY, KORATH HOUSE, For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :30/10/2008 O R D E R R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3478 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October 2008 O R D E R
The petitioner and the fourth respondent face allegations in
a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Section
392 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the de facto
complainant who had voluntarily got into a car and had travelled
along with the accused persons was allegedly robbed of a gold
chain which he had in his possession. Crime was registered.
Investigation is in progress. In the course of the investigation,
parties have settled their disputes. They have come before this
court to apprise the court of the fact that the disputes having
been settled between them, they may be saved of the
unnecessary and undeserved trauma of continuance of the
proceedings. The petitioner had initially arrayed only the third
respondent, that is the de facto complainant as a party. Later, in
the course of the proceedings, the fourth respondent/first
accused has also been arrayed as party. The third respondent
has entered appearance through counsel. He has filed an
affidavit to confirm that he has settled his disputes with both the
accused persons. The fourth respondent has not entered
appearance. In these circumstances, the counsel pray that the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as
enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of
Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287] and Nikhil Merchant v.
Central Bureau of Investigation [2008(3) KLT 769(SC)]
may be invoked to bring to premature termination the
proceedings initiated by the registration of crime No.425/2008.
2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no
objection against quashing of proceedings. The dispute is one
which is purely personal and private between the parties. The
friends were travelling in a car and consumed alcohol. The
incident occurred in the course of such activity between the
friends. In these circumstances, the State has no objection
against quashing of further proceedings in that crime, submits
the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I
am satisfied that the parties have voluntarily and willingly
settled all their disputes and that the third respondent has
compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner
and the fourth respondent herein.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor further confirms that
the accused persons are not involved in any similar offence. The
dispute between the parties appear to be purely private and
personal one. No public interest or interest of public justice is
involved also. The proceedings can hence be brought to
premature termination by invoking the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan and
Nikhil Merchant (Supra).
5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) Crime No.425/2008 of Pudukkad police station
registered under Section 392 I.P.C against the petitioner herein
and the fourth respondent is hereby quashed.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008