IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 54 of 2009()
1. P.HARIDASAN ,S/O.JANAKI AMMA
... Petitioner
2. VARUNDAS, S/O.P.HARIDASAN,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. P.SHOBHANA, W/O.ACHUTHAN KUTTY
3. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.SAKIR.K.H.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :21/01/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.54 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January 2009
O R D E R
Petitioners face indictment as the accused in a prosecution
for offences punishable under Sections 447,452,341,427,506(ii)
and 294B read with 34 I.P.C. All other offences except the one
under Section 452, 506(ii) and 294b I.P.C are compoundable
offences. The alleged incident relates to a dispute regarding
property between the rival contestants. Petitioners 1 and 2 are
the accused and respondents 2 and 4 are the alleged victims.
Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed.
Cognizance has been taken. Calender case has been registered.
Trial has not commenced.
2. At this juncture, the petitioners and respondents 2
and 4 have come before this court through their counsel to
apprise this court of the fact that all outstanding disputes
between them have been settled harmoniously and respondents
2 and 4 have compounded all the offences alleged against the
petitioners. Affidavits have been filed by respondents 2 to 4 to
confirm such settlement/composition. Learned counsel for
Crl.M.C.No. 54/09 2
respondents 2 and 4 does also confirm such
settlement/composition.
3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer for
composition. It is conceded that the disputes are purely personal
and private between the contestants and no issues of public
justice or public interest are involved.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners and
respondents 2 and 4 pray, the learned Public Prosecutor does
not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an
eminently fit case where 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],
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008
(3) KLT 769(SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT
417 SC] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination
the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the
petitioner.
Crl.M.C.No. 54/09 3
5. In the result,
a) This Crl.M.C is allowed.
b) C.C No.311/08 pending before the learned J.F.C.M,
Kunnamangalam in which petitioners 1 and 2 are the accused
and respondents 2 and 4 are the alleged victims 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
Crl.M.C.No. 54/09 4
Crl.M.C.No. 54/09 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008