IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 583 of 2008()
1. SUBRAMONIAN, MANAGER, ICICI BANK
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY
... Respondent
2. P.K.HARIDAS, PARVATHY SADANAM
For Petitioner :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/10/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------
CRL. M.C. No. 583 OF 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 7th October, 2008.
O R D E R
Petitioner is the second accused and the third respondent is
the first accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable under
Section 409 read with Section 34 IPC. Cognizance was taken on the
basis of a final report submitted by the police after due
investigation. The crux of the allegation is that the petitioner and
the third respondent who are officials of the ICICI Bank Ltd. had
committed breach of trust and misappropriation in respect of
certain shares entrusted to them as employees of the bank by a
customer i.e the defacto complainant, the second respondent
herein.
2. The crime in turn was registered on the basis of a private
complaint filed by the second respondent herein wherein he is
arrayed as the first petitioner and the third respondent as also two
others as accused. The complaint was referred to the police under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and it is after completing the investigation
that in the said crime the final report was filed. Cognizance was
Crl.M.C.583/08 2
taken and the matter is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Ernakulam as C.C.195/05.
3. At this stage the petitioner and the third respondent along
with the second respondent have come before this Court to apprise
this Court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes
willingly and voluntarily and that the second respondent does not
now want to further prosecute the petitioner and the third
respondent. All outstanding disputes have been settled. The
offences allegedly committed by the petitioner and the third
respondent have been compounded by the second respondent.
Notiwthstanding the fact that the offence is not compoundable
under Section 320 Cr,.P.C. the composition may be accepted and
premature termination may be brought out by invoking
extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The second
respondent has entered appearance through counsel. He confirms
that a joint statement has been filed by the second respondent
along with the petitioner herein, to confirm that there has been
Crl.M.C.583/08 3
settlement and composition.
4. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. The learned
Prosecutor does not oppose the application. I am satisfied that if
legally permissible the composition can be accepted.
5. The offence is of course not compoundable but the counsel
pray that the dictum laid down in Madhan Mohan Abboot v. State of
Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287) may be invoked to prematurely
terminate the proceedings against the accused persons. I am
satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where such course can be
adopted. In the absence of opposition from the learned Prosecutor
it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail.
Suffice it to say that the dispute is one which is purely personal and
private between the accused and the defacto complainant.
In the result:
a) this criminal M.C. Is allowed.
b) C.C.195/05 pending against the petitioner herein and the
third respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in which
Crl.M.C.583/08 4
the second respondent herein is the defacto complainant is hereby
quashed.
c) Needless to say that the proceedings if any pending against
the petitioner and the third respondent and the sureties under
Section 446 Cr.P.C shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
R. BASANT
JUDGE
jj
