IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 689 of 2007()
1. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, S/O. DAMODARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SRI. JOYKUTTY, S/O. MARIYAN,
3. SAM KUMAR, S/O. SEBASTIAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/03/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.689 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section
332 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report
submitted by the police after due investigation. The petitioner has
come to this Court with the prayer that powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner. The offence is admittedly not compoundable under Section
320 I.P.C. How then can the composition be accepted and the
proceedings quashed ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that it is only the ego clash between the complainant and the accused,
which led to the filing of the complaint before the police. The
complainant does not want to prosecute the prosecution. In these
circumstances, it is prayed that composition may be accepted and the
proceedings may be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
2. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are to be invoked to
meet extraordinary situations. Section 482 Cr.P.C saves the
extraordinary inherent powers of this Court to do justice in an
appropriate case. The offence is not compoundable and in such a
prosecution the fact that the complainant would turn hostile and that
he has compounded the offence is no valid reason to quash the
proceedings. The counsel relies on the decision in B.S.Joshy v. State
Crl.M.C.No.689 of 2007 2
of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) S.C 1386]. That decision, it has been
repeated many times, does not obliterate the distinction between
compoundable and non compoundable offences under the Code of
Criminal Procedure. When law declares an offence to be non
compoundable, compelling reasons must be shown to exist to invoke
the powers, if any, to quash the proceedings in a prosecution relating
to a non compoundable offence. In B.S.Joshy (supra), the Supreme
Court was dealing with a totally different situation, where the spouses
had settled their disputes and the continuation of the prosecution for
the non compoundable offence under Section 498 A I.P.C was
reckoned as an unnecessary irritant in the matrimonial dispute
between the spouses. The extraordinary situation available in that
case persuaded the Supreme Court to observe that powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked in an appropriate case in the
interests of justice and that Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot fetter those
powers. I find absolutely no such compelling reasons in the instant
case. I am satisfied that the petitioner must resort to the ordinary
and regular procedure of claiming acquittal/discharge from the court
below by raising appropriate contentions. I find no reason to invoke
such powers in this case.
3. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-