IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3342 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC.254/2006 IN LP.20/2007 OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMABALAPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED 2 --------------------- REJI KRISHNAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, EDAYILE VEEDU, CHEPPAD PANCHAYATH, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENTS: STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.V.KURUVILA, AGED 53 YEARS, THALAYINAPARAMBIL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM P.O., NIRANAM, KADAPRA VILLAGE, MANNAR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB SRI.GOKULDAS V.V. FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3342 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the second respondent in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 467 I.P.C. Altogether there were two accused persons. The first accused stood trial. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the trial court. In appeal, the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence were upheld. The first accused came before this Court in revision and another Bench of this Court as per order dt. 8.8.2008 in Crl.R.P. 585 of 2007 set aside the conviction under Section 467 I.P.C. The offence under Section 420 I.P.C. was compounded by the complainant and the settlement between the first accused and the defacto complainant and the consequent composition were accepted by that Bench. The proceedings against the first accused stood terminated thus. 2. The case against the petitioner has been split up. It was refiled as C.C.254 of 2006 and has been transferred to the list of long pending cases. At this stage, the petitioner and the defacto Crl.M.C.No. 3342 of 2008 2 complainant have come before this Court with this petition to apprise this Court of the fact that the disputes between them have been settled and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent submit that consequent to the order dt. 8.8.2008 in Crl.R.P. 585 of 2007, no charges are liable to be framed under Section 467 I.P.C. and that at any rate all the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner, including the non-compoundable offence under Section 467 I.P.C. allegedly committed by the petitioner, have been compounded by the second respondent. 3. The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel and an application for composition duly signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and counter signed by their respective counsel has been filed to confirm the fact of settlement and composition. An agreement entered into between the parties has also been produced as Annex.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 and the second respondent/defacto complainant pray that the settlement and consequent composition may be accepted and further proceedings Crl.M.C.No. 3342 of 2008 3 dropped invoking the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. They submit that in the light of the decision of this Court in Crl.R.P. 585 of 2007 the mere inclusion of the allegation under Section 467 I.P.C. should not stand in the way of acceptance of the composition. It is further submitted that at any rate, invoking the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) this Court may be pleased to prematurely terminate the proceedings against the petitioner. 4. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who does not oppose the application. But he submits that the second respondent is not available in India for the Investigator to contact him personally and ascertain the fact of settlement. If this Court is convinced of the settlement, composition can be accepted and premature termination can be brought about, submits the Prosecutor. 5. I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled the disputes and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the ground realities must be taken into account and unnecessary continuance of the Crl.M.C.No. 3342 of 2008 4 prosecution pending against the petitioner can be terminated. 6. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. b) L.P. 20 of 2007 (C.C.254 of 2006) pending before the J.F.M.C., Ambalapuzha is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, initiated against the petitioner and his sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm