IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4234 of 2008() ----------------------------------- CMP.9622/08 IN CC.123/2002 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VADAKKANCHERY .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- P.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ACHUTHA MENON, PUTHUMANA HOUSE, P.O. PERINGAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2. V. RAVUNNI, S/O. C.N.NAIR, SREEVALSAM, WADAKKANCHERY, THALAPPILLY THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4234 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, for the non-compoundable offences under Sec.406 and 409 IPC. Proceedings were initiated on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after investigation in a crime. That crime, in turn, was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant/respondent herein which was forwarded to the police under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner had earlier come to this Court for quashing of proceedings. It was submitted that the matter was settled. That Crl.M.C. was ultimately dismissed giving the parties an option to report settlement before the learned Magistrate. Settlement was reported before the learned Magistrate, it is submitted. But Crl.M.C. No.4234 of 2008 -: 2 :- inasmuch as the offences alleged included non-compoundable offences, the learned Magistrate could not give the parties any effective order. They have hence come to this Court to report to this Court that the matter has been settled between the parties and that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has no surviving grievance against the petitioner. All outstanding disputes have been settled and the alleged offences have been compounded by the 2nd respondent, it is submitted. 2. Annexure-D copy of the application filed before the learned Magistrate and Annexure-E copy of the order passed by the learned Magistrate thereon have also been produced. The 2nd respondent/complainant is represented by a counsel who has filed a memo of appearance. The learned counsel Mr. Boby Mathew appears in person and confirms to this Court that the 2nd respondent has settled all his disputes with the petitioner. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that the settlement was reported to the learned Magistrate. The State has no objection against the acceptance of the composition and consequent quashing of the prosecution. 4. In response to a specific query put by this Court, it is Crl.M.C. No.4234 of 2008 -: 3 :- reported that the employer of the petitioner- K.S.F.E., has not taken any action against the petitioner and has never raised a grievance that the petitioner is guilty of any misconduct in employment in respect of the transaction in question. 5. 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 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); Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417) can safely be invoked now to bring to premature termination this unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioner. 6. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) C.C.No.123/02 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wadakanchery, in which the petitioner is the accused and the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. (c) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioner and the sureties under Sec.446 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No.4234 of 2008 -: 4 :- shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No.4234 of 2008 -: 5 :- R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4234 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 ORDER The prayer is to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. and quash a prosecution for non-compoundable offences by invoking the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287) as the parties have settled their disputes. The 2nd respondent/the alleged victim has entered appearance through counsel to confirm settlement. Notice given and the learned Public Prosecutor shall take instructions. Call on 14/11/2008. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ Crl.M.C. No.4234 of 2008 -: 6 :-