IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4394 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.362/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- SUDHEER S/O.ALASAN, AGED 31 YEARS, KAVOOTIL HOUSE, THACHAMPARA VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERAL REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL. 2. M/S.HOMFIT LEASING LIMITED, VCM COMPLEX, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, JAYAKUMAR.P. (Addl.2nd respondent is impleaded as per order dt.25.11.08 in Crl.M.Appl.No.6654/08) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU ADV. SMT.A.PREMAKUMARI FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4394 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 424 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The crux of the allegations is that articles under a hire purchase arrangement were taken by the petitioner from the defacto complainant, a finance company. The amount was not paid nor were the articles returned. The articles were fraudulently converted. This is the crux of the allegations. 2. Cognizance has been taken. Calendar Case has been registered. Trial has not commenced. 3. At this stage, the petitioner/accused and the respondent/defacto complainant have come before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that disputes between the parties have been settled and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. Crl.M.C. No.4394 of 2008 2 4. The offence under Section 406 I.P.C is not a compoundable offence in as much as the value of the article exceeds Rs.2,500/-. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor reports that the dispute is one which is personal and private between the parties. No issues of public interest or public justice are involved, it is submitted. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant pray, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the composition can be accepted and the prosecution against the petitioner can be brought to premature termination by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 (3) KLT 19], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769 (SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)]. 6. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; Crl.M.C. No.4394 of 2008 3 b) C.C.No.363 of 2001 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad, in which the petitioner is the accused and the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed; c) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties, shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-