IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH APRIL 2009 / 8TH VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1394 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.945/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ---------------------- SEBASTIAN, S/O. ENASI, MUTTATHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, PANIKKARUPADY BHAGAM, MURUKKUMPADAM KARA, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NARAKKAL. 3. BINCY, D/O. KUNJAPPAN, ARAKKAL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, KOCHI TALUK. R1-R2 BY P.P.MR.AMJAD ALI R3 BY ADV. SRI.VINUCHAND SRI.GANESH G.PILLAI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.1394 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 28th April, 2009 ORDER Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.945/08 which is a split up case from C.C.No.568/06 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Kochi. He was the 5th accused in C.C.No.568/06 and on his default to appear, the case against him was split up and the trial proceeded against the other accused, which, admittedly, ended in their conviction. The offence imputed against the petitioner and coaccused was under Section 498 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Now, composition of the offence has been arrived at by the defacto complainant and she does not desire to proceed against him in the split up case, is the case pleaded for quashing the entire proceedings in that case. An affidavit purported to have been signed by the defacto complainant as to the composition made with the petitioner is also filed as Annexure III in the petition. 2. Notice on the application was issued to the third respondent, the defacto complainant. It is reported that notice has been served on her behalf to her father. However, she has not entered appearance. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the Crl.M.C.1394/09 - 2 - Public Prosecutor. Petitioner is prosecuted on a police charge sheeted case and, admittedly, trial against the coaccused ended in their conviction. Composition, if any, made by the petitioner with the defacto complainant is entertainable or not is a matter to be gone into by the learned Magistrate and not by this court. Inherent power of this court cannot be invoked for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.945/08 proceeded against the petitioner in the given facts of the case. Petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE