High Court Kerala High Court

Rehman vs Unknown on 14 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Rehman vs Unknown on 14 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4031 of 2008()


1. REHMAN, S/O.ANZAR, AGED 21 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SAJEEV, S/O.T.M.SALI
3. ANZAR, S/O.ABDUL VAHID, 23 YEARS
4. REX, S/O.ABDUL REHIM,
5. RAJA, S/O.ABDUL REHMAN KUNJU

                        Vs



6. RIYAZ, S/O.SHAMSUDHEEN,
                       ...       Respondent

7. FAYAZ, S/O.ISMAIL

1. STATRE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC

2. BEEVA SIRAJ, D/O.NASEEMA BEEVI, AGED 36

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJEEV

                For Respondent  :SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :14/11/2008

 O R D E R
                         R. BASANT, J.
           -------------------------------------------------
                 Crl.M.C. No. 4031 of 2008
           -------------------------------------------------
       Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008

                              ORDER

The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for

offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.341, 354 and 324

read with Sec.149 IPC. All those substantive offences are

compoundable. They face allegations under Sec.143 and 147

IPC also. Those offences are not compoundable. Altogether

there are 7 petitioners. They are the only accused in the

crime. There are two victims in the crime i.e., C.Ws.1 and 2.

C.W.1 is arrayed as the 2nd respondent herein. C.W.2 is no

more. Her legal representative – her husband, has now been

arrayed as the additional 3rd respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays, the

learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 accepts the said

request and the learned Public Prosecutor concedes that the

Crl.M.C. No. 4031 of 2008 -: 2 :-

prosecution against the petitioners can now be quashed invoking

the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum

in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW

2287); Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)) and

Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417) inasmuch as

respondents 2 and 3 have compounded the offences and the

parties have settled all their outstanding disputes.

3. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the

jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in

the three decisions referred above can profitably be invoked to

bring to premature termination the prosecution against the

petitioners. It is submitted that the investigation has already

completed and final report has been filed. Cognizance has been

taken as C.C.No.712/07 pending before the learned Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class-II, Attingal.

4. In the result:

(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.

(b) C.C.No.712/07 pending before the learned Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class-II, Attingal, against the petitioners

herein is hereby quashed.

(c) Needless to say, the proceedings, if any, pending

Crl.M.C. No. 4031 of 2008 -: 3 :-

against the petitioners and the sureties under Sec.446 Cr.P.C.

shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate in accordance

with law.

SD/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge