IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH APRIL 2009 / 4TH VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1368 of 2009() ------------------------- C.C. 978/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER(S)/ ACCUSED ---------------------- DILEEP.V., S/O.KANNAN.V., VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, EMBETT, PARIYARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S)/ STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND OTHERS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION (REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM). 2. P.K.SURESH, S/O.A.V.SREEDHARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KADANNAPPALLI, PANAPUZHA, KANNUR. 3. P.T.RAJAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 42 YEARS, KADANNAPPALLI, KANNUR. 4. SASI, S/O.P.R.KUNHAPPAN, AGED 34 YEARS, KOTTATHUMCHAL, KADANNAPPALLI, KANNUR. 5. E.P.BALAN, S/O.P.R.KORAN NAMBIAR, AGED 52 YEARS, VALLAYANKODE, PARIYARAM, KANNUR. 6. P.K.BHARGHAVAN, S/O.NARAYANAN.C.K., AGED 47 YEARS, KOTTATHUMCHAL, KADANNAPPALLU, KANNUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.T.K. MOHANAN ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN FOR R2 TO R6 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ---------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 1368 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of April, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C to quash further proceedings in C.C. 978/2008 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba wherein the petitioner is the sole accused. Petitioner was the 2nd accused in C.C. 9/2008 among the five accused proceeded under Sections 143, 147, 148, 308 and 324 r/w Section 149 of the IPC on a charge laid by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thaliparamba. Petitioner was not available for trial and hence the case against him was split up and, subsequently, re-numbered as C.C. 978/2008. He has filed the above petition for quashing further proceedings of that case contending that no useful purpose will be served by the continuation of the proceedings. The co- accused who had been tried in C.C. 9/2008 had been found not guilty and acquitted of the offences and in the trial of that case material prosecution witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution is the basis for such claim. Annexure A5 is the Crl.M.C. 1368/2009 -2- judgment passed in the above criminal case. Respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant and respondents 3 to 6 are the material witnesses included in the charge sheet to prove the case imputed against the accused and in the affidavits sworn by them separately it is stated that they have no more grievance against the petitioner and no objection in quashing the proceedings as prayed for, is also canvassed by the petitioner for granting them relief. 2. Respondents 2 to 6 have entered appearance through counsel. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents 2 to 6. Learned Public Prosecutor was also heard. The parties have settled the matter and have resolved the disputes and the case tried against the other accused in the crime had ended in acquittal under Annexure A5 judgment indicating that no material was produced by the prosecution to sustain their charges against any of the accused, is the basis for seeking the relief under the petition. Affidavits sworn by respondents 2 to 6 to show that continuation of the proceedings in C.C. 978/2008 against the petitioner will not serve any purpose other than Crl.M.C. 1368/2009 -3- causing hardship and injuries to him and inconvenience to the witnesses and loss of precious time of the court, is also canvassed. Evidently petitioner was not available when the trial commenced and as such the trial proceeded against the other accused with the case against him split up to proceed against him separately. A5 judgment would disclose only three of the witnesses in the charge sheet had been examined and the remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecutor, whatever be the reasons to do so. A5 judgment does not impress me at all. Having regard to the nature of offences imputed, composition of such offences allegedly made by parties without, the juncture of the court has no sanction of law. This court of course in exercise of its inherent powers has authority to compound the offences beyond the ambit of Section 320 of the Crl.P.C. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved, I am not persuaded to accept the composition purported to have been made by the accused with respondents 2 to 6, who are stated to be the defacto complainant and material witnesses in the police charge sheeted case. I find no justifiable reason to Crl.M.C. 1368/2009 -4- quash the proceedings in C.C. 978/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba, in which the petitioner is proceeded as the sole accused. The case should reach its logical conclusion, after trial, in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE vkm