IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 156 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO. 163/06 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED -------------------------- SHAIJU,S/O KUNHI AYYAPPAN,NJATTUVETTY HOUSE,PARIYARAM DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- 1. STATE.REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM REP; THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION,CHALAKUDY. 2. JOSEPH, S/O.VAREED,AGED 45,KAITHARAN HOUSE, KAMMALAM DESOM, KODASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 156 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faced indictment on the basis of the final report submitted by the police alleging offences punishable under Sections 452 and 324 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Altogether there were three accused persons. Two of them have already faced trial and have been found not guilty and acquitted, it is reported. The case against the petitioner has been split up and the same is pending before the learned Magistrate. Trial has not commenced. The case has now been transferred to the list of long pending cases, submits the learned Prosecutor. 2. At this juncture the petitioner along with the defacto complainant i.e. the second respondent, has come to this Court to report that all outstanding disputes between the parties have been settled and the defacto complainant/victim i.e. the second respondent, has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. The offence under Section 452 I.P.C. is not Crl.M.C.No. 156 of 2009 2 compoundable. The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel and filed an affidavit to confirm that the disputes have been settled and the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner have been compounded. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent pray, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extra ordinary 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), Nikil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioner. I accept that no issues of public interest or public justice are directly involved and the dispute is one which is private and personal between the petitioner/accused and second respondent/victim. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. Crl.M.C.No. 156 of 2009 3 b) C.C.1061 of 2008 pending before the J.F.M.C. Chalakkudy (on the basis of the final report in Crime 163 of 2006 of Chalakkudy police station) in which the petitioner is the sole surviving accused and the second respondent is the defacto complainant/victim, is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm