IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2817 of 2008()
1. SURFF @ SARFUDEEN, S/O.ABDUL KHADER,
... Petitioner
2. KALEL IBRAHIM KALEEL
Vs
1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGODE
... Respondent
2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
3. C.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.CHIRUKANDAN,
4. P.N.RAJESH, S/O.NARAYANAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :31/07/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.Nos.2817 & 2818 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July 2008
O R D E R
The common petitioners in these two cases face indictment
in these prosecutions for offences punishable inter alia under
Section 153(A) read with 149 I.P.C.
2. The available co-accused have already been tried,
found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioners have now come
before this court to report to the court that they have settled
their disputes with the alleged victims. Some of the offences are
non-compoundable; but it is prayed that the dictum in Madan
Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287] may
be invoked and notwithstanding the fact that the offences are
non-compoundable, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be
pressed into service to bring about premature termination of the
proceedings.
3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor points out that this is not a fit case
where the dictum in Madan Mohan (Supra) can safely be
invoked and applied. It is submitted that the offences alleged
Crl.M.C.No.2817 & 2818 of 2008 2
include the offence punishable under Section 153A I.P.C and it
cannot be said that the dispute in this case is one which is
personal and private between the parties who have settled the
disputes. In any view of the matter there is absolutely no
justification in invoking the said dictum in this case, submits the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. I have already adverted to the dictum in Madan
Mohan (Supra) in the decision in Santhosh v.State of Kerala
[2008(3) KLT 240] and it has been held that Madan Mohan
(Supra) does not lay down an abstract principle of law that when
composition of a non-compoundable offence takes place,
conviction of law is found to be possible straight away powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash the
proceedings against the indictees. The acquittal of the co-
accused cannot also deliver any advantage to the petitioners in
the light of the decision in Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of Police
[2006(1) KLT 552 (FB)]. I am in these circumstances satisfied
that the prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners to bring to premature
termination the prosecutions under Section 153A I.P.C is not
justified.
Crl.M.C.No.2817 & 2818 of 2008 3
5. In the result, these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are
dismissed but with the specific observation that if the petitioners
surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail, after
giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the
case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate
orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on
the date of surrender itself.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.2817 & 2818 of 2008 4
Crl.M.C.No.2817 & 2818 of 2008 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008