IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3482 of 2008() ------------------------- LPC.64/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------- 1. NAVAS HIDAYATH ALIAS MUHAMMED HIDAYATH S/O.ABDUL AZIZ, PADANNA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-5. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SANTHOSH KUMAR.K.K, S/O.KUNHIRAMA PODUVAL, AGED 31 YEARS, ANNUR, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3482 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 10 r/w 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983. Cognizance in that crime was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. That crime in turn was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In such complaint, the crux of the allegation raised was that promising visa, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was fraudulently secured by the petitioner from the 2nd respondent. Crime was registered. Investigation was conducted. But in the final report, no allegation was raised under Section 420 I.P.C. ; instead allegation was raised under Section 10 r/w 24 of the Emigration Act. Cognizance has been taken. Calendar Case has been registered. The case has been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases. 2. At this stage, the petitioner has come to this Court along with the 2nd respondent to contend that the disputes between them have been settled and the 2nd respondent/complainant has absolutely no grievance against the Crl.M.C. No.3482 of 2008 2 petitioner now. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. He has appeared through counsel before this Court and a joint application for composition has also been filed. Such application was filed before the learned Magistrate also, it is submitted. But as the offence under Section 10 r/w 24 of the Emigration Act is not a compoundable offence, the composition has not been accepted. It is hence that the petitioner along with the 2nd respondent has come to this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations raised under Section 10 r/w 24 of the Emigration Act deserve to be quashed as there is no fundamental allegations to justify an indictment for the said offence. No one has a case that the petitioner had worked as a recruiting agent. The short allegation is that the petitioner was induced to part with money on the promise of securing a foreign employment. In these circumstances, the final report deserves to be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Alternatively the counsel contends that at any rate the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287] deserves to be invoked and the proceedings Crl.M.C. No.3482 of 2008 3 against the petitioner can be brought to premature termination. The counsel relies on the decision in Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769 (SC)] also in support of this contention. 5. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case where the dispute essentially is personal and private between the parties, the State has no objection against the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner. 6. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab and Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I can be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner. 7. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) L.P.C.No.64 of 2006 against the petitioner pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Payyannur is hereby quashed; iii) Needless to say, the proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner and his sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-