IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3380 of 2008()
1. MUHAMMED SHERIFF, S/O.CHERIYA MUHAMMED
... Petitioner
2. MOIDEEN, OF -DO-, -DO-.
3. BHUSHARA, W/O.MOIDEEN, OF -DO-
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. SAKEENA, W/O.CHERIYA MUHAMMED HAJI,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :17/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3380 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008
ORDER
Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in a prosecution for offences
punishable under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. Altogether there
are 4 accused persons in that case. The 4th accused has not been
arrayed as a petitioner or respondent in this Crl.M.C. Accused 1
and 2 are brothers. The 3rd accused is the wife of the 2nd
accused. The 4th accused is a stranger. The complainant, ie. the
2nd respondent, is the second wife of the father of accused 1 and
2. A complaint was filed in the year 2001. All the 3 petitioners
were arrayed as accused in that crime. After due investigation,
the police submitted a negative final report. Thereafter a protest
complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent as C.M.P.No.5863 of
2001 against the petitioners herein and the 4th accused.
Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on that
private complaint and the case is pending before the learned
Magistrate as C.C.No.711 of 2002. Trial in the matter is in
progress and the case stood posted for 313 examination when
this Crl.M.C was filed on 03.09.08.
Crl.M.C. No.3380 of 2008 2
2. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent have now come
before this Court through their respective counsel to apprise this
Court of the fact that the disputes between them have been
settled amicably. They being relatives, mediators have
intervened and they have sorted out all their disputes. The 2nd
respondent, in these circumstances, has compounded the
offences allegedly committed by the petitioners as also the 4th
accused who has not been arrayed as a party in this Crl.M.C.
The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel.
She has filed an affidavit as Annexure-A2. It is stated
categorically at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent (and the 2nd
respondent in the affidavit has stated so) that all the disputes
have been settled and the 2nd respondent has compounded the
offences allegedly committed by the accused persons including
th petitioners herein. It is prayed that the composition may be
accepted and the further proceedings in C.C.No.711 of 2002 may
be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar
by the counsel and from the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent
Crl.M.C. No.3380 of 2008 3
that there has been a genuine and voluntary settlement of the
disputes and composition of all the offences allegedly committed
by all the accused by the 2nd respondent. The counsel for the 2nd
respondent vouches for that fact before the Court. I am
satisfied, in these circumstances, that if legally permissible and
possible, the composition can be accepted and further
proceedings in C.C.No.711 of 2002 can be discontinued.
4. But the offence under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C are
not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The learned
counsel for the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, in these
circumstances, rely on the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v.
State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287]. It is submitted that the
dispute is one which is purely personal and private between the
parties. They having settled the disputes, no fruitful outcome is
likely to result from the prosecution. In the interests of justice
and in the interests of optimum use of judicial time, the ground
realities may be taken into account and the proceedings may be
quashed, it is prayed.
5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit
in the prayer of the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. This, I
am satisfied, is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary
Crl.M.C. No.3380 of 2008 4
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the
dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab can be
safely imported and the prosecution against the petitioner can be
brought to premature termination.
6. In the result:
i) This Crl.M.C is allowed;
ii) C.C.No.711 of 2002 pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangadi against
the petitioners herein and the 4th accused in which the 2nd
respondent herein is the complainant is hereby quashed;
iii) Needless to say, proceedings if any pending against
the petitioners or the 4th accused and their sureties under
Section 446 Cr.P.C shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-