IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4736 of 2008() ------------------------- LP.71/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI CRIME NO.26/1997 OF CHALISSERY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: --------------- RAHIM, S/O. SATHAR, CHAKKAMPULLY HOUSE VATTAMKULAM AMSOM, UDINIKKARA DESOM, POST EDAPPAL, PONANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VALSALA, D/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, MUNDAM VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, SANDHYA NIVAS, PERINGODE, NAGALESSERY VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.C.DILIP FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4736 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner is the sole surviving accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 452 and 363 r/w 149 I.P.C. The case against all the other co-accused had already come to termination. The case against the petitioner is pending as L.P.No.71 of 2001 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi. 2. The defacto complainant in that case is the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent have come to this Court through their counsel to apprise this Court of the fact that they have settled all their outstanding disputes and the 2nd respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner herein. The husband of the 2nd respondent is no more and the 2nd respondent is the legal heir/widow of the said person. An affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent duly attested by the counsel to confirm such settlement/composition of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. It is further brought to my notice that one of the co-accused had come before this Court and had got the prosecution against him quashed as per Annexure-C order. Crl.M.C. No.4736 of 2008 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent 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 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 the surviving prosecution against the petitioner herein. 4. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) L.P.No.71 of 2001, in which the petitioner is an accused and the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant/injured pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi, is hereby quashed; iii) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C, shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-