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. 3242 of 2008() ------------------------- CR.NO.436/2008 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SUNIL KUMAR.V.V., @ VADIVAL SUNI, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, 33 YEARS PARVATHI NIVAS,, PALLIKUNNU AMSOM, KANNUR 2. SHAJIN P @ CHIRAMMAL KUTTAU, S/O.CHANDRADAS, 28 YEARS, CHIRAMMAL HOUSE PALLIKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR. 3. BIJOYRAJ E.K., @ BULB BIJU, S/O.E.K.JAYA RAJAN, 32 YEARS, SHYJA NIVAS, PALLIKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR. 4. PRAJITH.U.K., S/O.UDAYABHANU, 30 YEARS UDAYA NIVAS, THOTTADA POST, KIZHUNNAPARA, KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 2. KAVIL SATHI, D/O.ANANDAN, 46 YEARS, KANIYANTE VALAPPIL HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR. 3. VENDAN RAJESHBABU, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, 40 YEARS, AZHIKODE AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR. 4. VENANDAN PREMARAJAN, S/O.ANANDAN, 50 YEARS, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR. 5. VENADAN LIJITH, S/O,LAKSHMANAN, 20 YEARS ,CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR FOR R2 TO 5 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.3242 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioners have come to this Court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the F.I.R registered against them as Crime No.438 of 2008 of Kannur Town Police Station. That crime is registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 148, 452 and 506(2) r/w 149 I.P.C. Allegations of compoundable and non compoundable offences are raised in the F.I.R. The defacto complainant is the 2nd respondent herein. She is a widow, who has 3 daughters. The marriage of one of her daughters was to be celebrated on 09.06.08. There was a reception in connection with the wedding on 08.06.08. The crux of the allegations raised in the F.I.R is that the 4 petitioners herein along with about 5 others, under the influence of alcohol, trespassed into the premises where the reception was being celebrated. They came in with beer bottles. They picked up quarrel and indulged in wanton acts of violence and mischief . The beer bottles were broken and with them, they indulged in acts of intimidation. Tube lights, chairs etc. were broken. Crl.M.C. No.3242 of 2008 2 Information was given to the control room police and the control room police came there. Mobile phones of two persons suffered damage in the incident. A gold chain weighing 2 sovereigns was lost in the course of the incident. Damage and loss to the tune of Rs.4,000/- was caused by the destruction of the articles. Crime was registered. Investigation is in progress. Bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court. 2. At that stage, the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 have now come before this Court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Respondents 3 to 5 are others, who in addition to the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein), have suffered on account of the incident in question. It is reported to the Court that the parties have settled their disputes and respondents 2 to 5 have compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. In these circumstances it is prayed that notwithstanding the fact that some of the alleged offences are not compoundable, the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287] may be invoked to bring to premature termination the crime registered against the petitioners. Crl.M.C. No.3242 of 2008 3 3. Respondents 2 to 5 have entered appearance through counsel. Their counsel confirms that the matter has been settled between the parties. An agreement entered into between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 is produced before the Court. Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 submits that the matter has been settled and the composition has been effected. 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there has been no bona fide and genuine settlement at all. The victims have been forced to subscribe their signatures to the agreement and at any rate there is no honest, bona fide and genuine settlement, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that even assuming that respondents 2 to 5 have settled their disputes, the State has objection against acceptance of the composition and invocation of the extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The co- accused have not been ascertained yet. Some of the accused persons have questionable antecedents. Not only the defacto complainant, but others who, came for the reception, have also suffered inconvenience and legal injury. The damage caused to the furniture etc. which have been leased, have resulted in legal Crl.M.C. No.3242 of 2008 4 injury not to respondents 2 to 5, but to others. The persons belonging to the catering service have also suffered damage and loss. At any rate, this is not a fit case where the composition of the non compoundable offences can be accepted and investigation can be brought to premature termination. The police may be permitted to complete the investigation and bring all the offenders to book. The mere fact that respondents 2 to 5 have been coerced to a settlement, may not be reckoned as the be all and end all in a prosecution like this. This petition may be dismissed, it is prayed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in response contends that exaggerated allegations have been raised. If a careful evaluation of the allegations were made, it will be evident that no non compoundable offence can be alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners also had grievances against those who had allegedly attacked them. They want to file complaints. They did not pursue such complaints because of the settlement between the parties. The alleged victims have been adequately compensated. In any view of the matter, this is a fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can and ought to be invoked, it is submitted. Crl.M.C. No.3242 of 2008 5 6. I have considered all the relevant inputs. At this early stage of the proceedings, I shall not embark on any more detailed discussion on the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Except an agreement and the assertion at the Bar by the counsel, no other material has been produced to show that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes. I shall for the purpose of argument assume that respondents 2 to 5 have genuinely settled their disputes, but even then I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the composition of the non compoundable offences alleged against the petitioners can be accepted and further proceedings quashed. I take note of the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that some of the accused have criminal antecedents and that the co-accused have not been traced, ascertained or proceeded against yet. Premature termination of the proceedings will virtually frustrate the attempt of the police to apprehend the offenders. In the nature of the allegations raised, it cannot be assumed that the dispute is one which is purely private and personal between the parties. Strangers had trespassed into the venue where a wedding reception was taking place. It cannot be assumed that the dispute is private and personal between the parties. Crl.M.C. No.3242 of 2008 6 7. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account I come to the firm conclusion that this is not a fit case where the alleged composition, can be accepted, and the crime registered alleging non compoundable offences can or ought to be brought to premature termination. 8. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations raised. I have only chosen to take the view that the F.I.R does not deserve to be quashed at this early stage. The dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to take up all relevant and appropriate contentions at later stages. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-