IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1309 of 2007() ------------------------- (S.C.No.435 of 2006 BEFORE THE ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (Ad hoc I) ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: 6TH ACCUSED ------------------------ SYAM, S/O. BHARATHAN, PUSHPANJALI VEEDU, AMBEDKAR ROAD, VENNALA KARA, EDAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. SONY K. VARKEY, S/O. A.M.VARKEY, VELLURKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.1309 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 ORDER Petitioner was one of the 7 accused persons, who faced indictment for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 326 r/w 149 I.P.C. The petitioner was arrayed as the 6th accused. All the other co-accused faced trial and by judgment dated 25.08.06 in Sessions Case No.344 of 2004, they were all found not guilty and acquitted. There was not a semblance of evidence adduced against the accused persons who faced trial and even the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with. It was evident that the matter has been settled between the parties. As the petitioner was not available for trial, the case against him was split up. It is re-numbered as S.C.No.435 of 2006 and the same is pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam now. At this stage, the petitioner-the 6th accused and the sole victim-the 3rd respondent have come before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties. A joint application has been filed by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent duly Crl.M.C. No.1309 of 2007 2 countersigned by their respective counsel that the matter has been settled. The 3rd respondent is the only injured in the case. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly it is contended that all the co-accused having already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted, no useful purpose whatsoever will be served by continuation of the surviving prosecution against the petitioner. Obviously aware of the decision of the Full Bench in [Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552], the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case this Court finds that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked in the light of the said dictum, 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 proceedings against the petitioner. Parties have settled the disputes. According to the petitioner, though allegations under Sections 308 and 326 have been raised, as a matter of fact, no such allegations can validly lie. At Crl.M.C. No.1309 of 2007 3 any rate, the allegation under Section 308 I.P.C is not justified at all. The parties have settled the dispute and the dispute being one which is personal between the accused and the defacto complainant and no public policy or public interest having been directly involved in the dispute, it is prayed that, at any rate, the composition may be accepted and proceedings against the petitioner may be prematurely terminated. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The State has no objection in this Court burying the unnecessary prosecution against the petitioner which is continuing in spite of the acquittal of all the co-accused, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that this is an eminently fit case where, the offences alleged though not compoundable, the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner. 5. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; Crl.M.C. No.1309 of 2007 4 ii) S.C.No.435 of 2006 against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.1309 of 2007 5 R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.1309 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 ORDER This petition is to quash a surviving prosecution under Section 308 I.P.C against the petitioner herein, one of the accused. The co-accused have already been acquitted. The learned Public Prosecutor shall take instructions as to whether the State has any objection against invocation of the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287] and quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Call on 25.07.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.1309 of 2007 6