IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4909 of 2008()
1. XAVIER, @ SURESH, S/O. THIONS, AGED
... Petitioner
2. VARGHESE, @ ROSHI S/O. THIONS,
Vs
1. JERALD, S/O. THAMPI, AGED 34 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. JOSPHINE, W/O. JERALD AGED 33 YEARS,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
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.4909 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009
ORDER
Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences
punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 I.P.C and Section 27 of
the Arms Act. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioners
herein, ie. accused 1 and 2 allegedly attacked and caused
injuries to respondents 1 and 2, spouses, who are the alleged
victims in this crime. Investigation is complete. Final report has
already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The case
against the petitioners has been committed to the Court of
Session and the matter is pending as S.C.No.1898 of 2006 before
the Assistant Sessions Judge-III, Trivandrum. Altogether there
are 2 victims; they are respondents 1 and 2. Trial has not
commenced.
2. At this juncture, petitioners 1 and 2 along with
respondents 1 and 2 have appeared before this Court through
counsel to confirm that all outstanding disputes between them
have been settled and respondents 1 and 2 have compounded the
offences allegedly committed by the petitioners.
Crl.M.C. No.4909 of 2008 2
3. Respondents 1 and 2 have entered appearance. They
have filed separate affidavit to confirm such
composition/settlement. Notice was given to the learned Public
Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor accepts that the
disputes between the parties have been settled and respondents
1 and 2 have compounded the offences allegedly committed by
the petitioners. The disputes between the parties are purely
private and personal between them. The State, in these
circumstances, does not want to oppose the prayer for quashing
of the proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners and
respondents 1 and 2 pray; the learned Public Prosecutor does
not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an
eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction
available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by
the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008
(3) KLT 19], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769 (SC)]
and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)] can safely
be invoked to bring to premature termination this prosecution
which has become unnecessary and irrelevant now.
Crl.M.C. No.4909 of 2008 3
5. In the result:
a) This Crl.M.C is allowed;
b) S.C.No.1696 of 2006 pending before the Assistant
Sessions Judge-III, Trivandrum in which the petitioners herein
are the accused and respondents 1 and 2 herein are the victims
is hereby quashed;
c) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against
the petitioners and their sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C, shall
be disposed of in accordance with law.
6. It is observed that the settlement/composition in this
case is part of a comprehensive settlement and Crl.M.C.No.4908
of 2008 is also being disposed of today on the basis of such
settlement/composition.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-