IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 156 of 2009()
1. SHAIJU,S/O KUNHI AYYAPPAN,NJATTUVETTY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE.REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH
... Respondent
2. JOSEPH, S/O.VAREED,AGED 45,KAITHARAN
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :28/01/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 156 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009
O R D E R
The petitioner faced indictment on the basis of the final
report submitted by the police alleging offences punishable under
Sections 452 and 324 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Altogether there were three
accused persons. Two of them have already faced trial and have
been found not guilty and acquitted, it is reported. The case
against the petitioner has been split up and the same is pending
before the learned Magistrate. Trial has not commenced. The
case has now been transferred to the list of long pending cases,
submits the learned Prosecutor.
2. At this juncture the petitioner along with the defacto
complainant i.e. the second respondent, has come to this Court to
report that all outstanding disputes between the parties have
been settled and the defacto complainant/victim i.e. the second
respondent, has compounded the offences allegedly committed
by the petitioner. The offence under Section 452 I.P.C. is not
Crl.M.C.No. 156 of 2009
2
compoundable. The second respondent has entered appearance
through counsel and filed an affidavit to confirm that the disputes have
been settled and the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner
have been compounded.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the second
respondent pray, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the said
prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the
extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as
enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab
(2008 (3) KLT 19), Nikil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769)
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. I accept that no issues of
public interest or public justice are directly involved and the dispute is
one which is private and personal between the petitioner/accused and
second respondent/victim.
4. In the result:
a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Crl.M.C.No. 156 of 2009
3
b) C.C.1061 of 2008 pending before the J.F.M.C. Chalakkudy
(on the basis of the final report in Crime 163 of 2006 of Chalakkudy
police station) in which the petitioner is the sole surviving accused
and the second respondent is the defacto complainant/victim, is
hereby quashed.
c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if
any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties shall be disposed
of in accordance with law.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm