IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3864 of 2008()
1. SOUDEEP @ UNNIKUTTAN, S/O.DIVAKARAN,
... Petitioner
2. ABHILASH, S/O.KRISHNAKUMAR, UMMANATH
3. MOHAMMED NISAR @ KUNHUTTY,S/O.HUSSAIN,
4. ABOOBACKER SIDHIK, S/O.BEERANKUTTY,
Vs
1. MOHAMMED JABIR, S/O.AVARAN KUTTY,
... Respondent
2. MUHAMMEDALI, S/O.HASSANKUTTI, KARIMBIL
3. ABDU, S/O.HASSAN KUTTI, KARIMBIL HOUSE,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
For Respondent :SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/10/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3864 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences
punishable, inter alia, under Sections 452, 324, 427 and 308 read
with Section 34 IPC. Altogether there are four accused persons.
Final report has already been filed and cognizance was taken. As
against accused 1 to 3 the case has been committed to the court
of Sessions and the same is pending as SC No. 245/08 before the
Additional Sessions Judge(Adhoc) Fast Track-II, Manjeri. As
against the 4th accused, who was not available to be committed,
his case is pending before the learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Malappuram as CP No.32/08.
2. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons-
four in number-is that, they had trespassed into a hotel belonging
to respondents 1 to 3 and on account of animosity arising from a
prior incident they had attacked respondents 1 to 3 and had
caused injuries to them. It is urged that the act amounts to
commission of criminal offence and therefore the allegation is
raised under Section 308 IPC also. Respondents 1 to 3 have also
Crl.M.C. No. 3864 OF 2008
-:2:-
appeared before the court through counsel and counsel confirm
that there has been harmonious settlement of the dispute between
parties. Respondents 1 to 3 have, in these circumstances, settled
all the disputes and compounded the offences allegedly committed
by the petitioners. Respondents 1 to 3 confirm that they have
settled all their outstanding disputes with all the petitioners.
3. Counsel for the rival contestants prays that settlement of
the dispute and composition of the offences may be accepted and
invoking 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] and Nikhil Merchant v.
C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769 (SC)], the prosecution against all the
petitioners may be brought to premature termination.
4. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. The learned
Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer. It is evident that the
dispute was one between the petitioners on the one hand and
respondents 1 to 3 on the other about some previous incident
relating to the business of the hotel. The dispute is one which is
private and personal between parties and I am satisfied in these
Crl.M.C. No. 3864 OF 2008
-:3:-
circumstances that this is an eminently fit case where the dictum
in Madan Mohan Abbot and Nikhil Merchant (supra) can safely
be pressed into service. In the absence of opposition from the
learned Prosecutor, it is not necessary to consider the matter in
detail.
5. In the result:
a) This Crl.M.C in these circumstances is allowed.
b) SC No.245/08 against the petitioners 1 to 3 pending
before the Additional Sessions Judge(Adhoc) Fast
Track-II, Manjeri and CP No. 32/08 pending before the
JFCM, Malappuram against the 4th petitioner are hereby
quashed.
c) Needless to say, the proceedings, if any pending
against the petitioners and sureties shall be disposed of
by the respective court in accordance with law.
6. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
ttb
Crl.M.C. No. 3864 OF 2008
-:4:-
Crl.M.C. No. 3864 OF 2008
-:5:-
Crl.M.C. No. 3864 OF 2008
-:6:-