IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3491 of 2008()
1. VINU, S/O.RAJAN, PAREMAL HOUSE
... Petitioner
2. JITHESH.T.R., S/O.T.C.RADHAKRISHNAN
Vs
1. NIJO.P.THAMBI AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
For Respondent :SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/09/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3491 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused persons in Crime
No.383/08 of the Thrissur Town East Police Station.
Respondent No.1 is the de facto complainant in that crime.
That crime is registered alleging the offence punishable under
Sec.394 read with Sec.34 IPC. The crux of the allegations is
that on the night of 5/6/08 at about 9 p.m. when the de facto
complainant – a Priest, was present at a public place, he was
attacked and assaulted and a gold ring worn by him and a
mobile phone possessed by him were forcibly removed from his
possession by the two unidentified persons. The crime was
registered at 9.30 a.m. on 6/6/08. Investigation is in progress.
2. In the course of investigation, it is now alleged that
the petitioners are the persons responsible for the commission
Crl.M.C. No.3491 of 2008 -: 2 :-
of the crime. Both of them are persons who have just completed
20 years and are students. The allegedly robbed articles have
already been seized by the police. The de facto complainant/the
1st respondent and the petitioners have now come before this
Court to report to this Court that they have settled all their
disputes. The 1st respondent has compounded the offence
allegedly committed by the petitioners. He does not, in these
circumstances, want to prosecute the petitioners. It is prayed
that the settlement and the composition may be accepted and the
crime registered may be quashed invoking the extraordinary
inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the
dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008
AIR SCW 2287).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits and the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent accepts and endorses such
submission that the accused persons appear to have committed
the crime as a matter of momentary indiscretion allegedly under
the influence of alcohol and that they deserve the compassion
and concern of the system. The case may not be proceeded
against them. A lenient view may be taken and the crime
registered may be quashed, it is prayed.
4. The offence alleged is not compoundable. Under
Crl.M.C. No.3491 of 2008 -: 3 :-
Sec.320 Cr.P.C. composition of such offence is impermissible.
The learned counsel for the contestants rely on the decisions of
the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana (AIR
2003 SC 1386); Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab
(2008 AIR SCW 2287) and Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3)
KLT 769 (SC)) to impress upon this Court that this Court has got
the duty now to take note all ground realities. An unnecessarily
technical view should not be taken by this Court. The interests
of profitable deployment of the time of the police and the judicial
functionaries will have to be taken into consideration. In any
view of the matter, continuing with the investigation and
prosecution will be no avail or use for any one concerned. It
would only work out hardship, difficulties, harassment and
embarrassment to the petitioners. In these circumstances, the
crime registered may be quashed, it is prayed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the powers
under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. are awesome, it cannot normally be
invoked as a matter of course to accept composition of non-
compoundable offences. The allegations in this case are serious.
There is nothing personal or private between the petitioners and
the 1st respondent. The crime allegedly committed by the
Crl.M.C. No.3491 of 2008 -: 4 :-
accused in this case is really one against the society at large
though the 1st respondent who happens to be present at the
scene and at the receiving end of the crime committed. It would
be gross dereliction of duty on the part of the police not to
continue and complete the investigation. It will not advance the
interests of justice. On the contrary, it would defeat the interest
of public justice if police were not permitted to complete the
investigation in a case where serious allegations are raised.
6. Submissions have been made at the Bar about the
circumstances under which the complicity of the petitioners
were revealed to the police and the honest persuasions of the
petitioners as well as the parents of the petitioners. I shall not
advert to that in detail and encumber the records by making any
observations which may virtually be made use of in the
prosecution against the petitioners. Suffice it to say that I am
not persuaded to agree at all that this is a fit case where the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. can or
ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioners. I have in the
decisions in Santhosh v. State of Kerala (2008 (3) KLT 240)
and Babeesh @ Babin Kumar v. S.I. of Police (2008 (3) KHC
713) already adverted to the challenge before a court attempting
to apply the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of
Crl.M.C. No.3491 of 2008 -: 5 :-
Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287). Such powers are not to be
invoked readily as soon as the victim and the alleged offenders
report to the court that they have settled their dispute and they
have no grievance whatsoever in respect of the alleged non-
compoundable crime. Acceptance of such over simplified stand
would lead to the de facto complainant being prevailed upon
either by persuasions or by threat to compound the offences
against the interests of the State – the real aggrieved in all
crimes.
7. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this Crl.M.C.
only deserves to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners intend to move for
anticipatory bail. I make no observations on this aspect. All
rights of the petitioners, under law, shall remain unfettered by
the dismissal of this Crl.M.C.
8. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy// P.S. to Judge
Crl.M.C. No.3491 of 2008 -: 6 :-