IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4776 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.164/06 OF KODUMAN POLICE STATION L.P.131/08 OF JFMC, ADOOR. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O.VASU,MEENATHIL VEEDU, ANGADICKAL THEKKEKKARA MURI,ANGADICKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRIC. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGHCOURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUMAN POLICE STATION. 3. BABU JOSEPH, MARATHINAL KAROTTU VEEDU, ANGADICKAL THEKKEKKARA MURI, ANGADICKAL VILLAGE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM FOR R3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4776 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. Though in the final report an allegation had been raised under Section 294 b I.P.C, the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 294 b I.P.C. Both the other offences, ie. Sections 323 and 341 I.P.C are compoundable offences. The petitioner along with the victim/3rd respondent has now come to this Court with a prayer that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein in as much as parties have settled their disputes and the victim has compounded the offences allegedly committed. 2. Both the offence alleged are compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. I find no reason to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Parties can seek the relief from the court below under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No.4776 of 2008 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a warrant of arrest is pending against the petitioner and in these circumstances he apprehends that if he appears, he will be remanded to custody. I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued in this regard. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is dismissed; ii) But it is directed that coercive processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 31.12.08; iii) On or before that date, the victim/complainant can report to the learned Magistrate the composition of the offences alleged and thereupon such application must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously; iii) Needless to say, in the light of the decision in Baiju v. State of Kerala [2007 (4) KLT 1082], personal presence of the petitioner need not be insisted by the learned Magistrate to accept the composition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-