IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2353 of 2008() ------------------------- C.C.NO.237/06 OF J.F.C.M-I, PEERUMEDU PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------ GOPI, S/O VELAYUDHAN, KUNNATHUSSERIL VEEDU,PUTHUVAL BHAGOM,PUSUPPARA, VAGAMON VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------- 1. JOSEPH @ GEORGE KUTTY, MANACHIRAYIL VEEDU, VATTAPPATHAL KARA, VAGAMON VILLAGE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2353 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 I.P.C. He is the sole accused. He is alleged to have caused injuries to CW1, ie. the 1st respondent herein. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The prosecution is pending before the learned Magistrate as C.C.237 of 2006. 2. At this stage, the petitioner and the 1st respondent have settled their disputes. It is submitted at the Bar that some of the witnesses have been examined before court. But subsequently the petitioner and the 1st respondent who belong to the same locality and are friends have settled all their disputes. The 1st respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. To confirm this fact, the 1st respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed an affidavit asserting that the matter has been settled and the offences have been compounded. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent confirms that the matter has been settled. It is asserted that the affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent to confirm that fact. Crl.M.C. No.2353 of 2008 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the 1st respondent submit that there is no need or necessity for the prosecution to now continue. Notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Section 326 I.P.C is not compoundable, it may be noted that the dispute is one which is purely personal between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. No public interest or public policy is involved in any manner. Friends having already settled their disputes and amends having already been made by the petitioner, it is prayed that invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C this prosecution may be brought to premature termination. The counsel submit that the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287] may be taken note of. That decision is authority for the proposition that the courts in a situation like this have to adopt a commonsense approach not hedged unnecessarily by the technicalities of law. 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions confirms that the matter has been settled. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State does not, in the circumstances of this case, has any objection against premature termination of the proceedings accepting the composition made by the 1st Crl.M.C. No.2353 of 2008 3 respondent which according to the State also is honest and genuine. 5. The offence under Section 326 I.P.C may be not compoundable. But I am satisfied that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab can be safely and profitably imported into the facts and premature termination of the prosecution can be allowed. 6. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) C.C.No.237 of 2006 pending against the petitioner herein before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Peerumedu is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-