IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2068 of 2008() ------------------------- SC.1132/2006 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- KUNHABDULLA, S/O.KUNHAMMAD, PEDIKAYULLAPARAMBATH HOUSE, KARANTHODE AMSOM DESOM KUTTIYADI. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. ADDL.2. KUNHIRAMAN, S/O. KANARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KAYAKKODI VILLAGE, VADAKARA TALUK. 3. KANARAN, S/O. KUNKAN, AGED 74 YEARS, KAYAKKODI VILLAGE, VADAKARA TALUK. ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.3242/08 DATED 30/6/08. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. SRI.SUDHEESH.A. FOR ADDL.R2 & 3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2068 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the 2nd accused and he, along with two others, faced indictment for the offence punishable under Sec.436 read with Sec.34 IPC. The co-accused have already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner was not available for trial. The case against him was split up. The same is now pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Vadakara, as S.C.NO.1132/06. At this stage, the petitioner, along with the de facto complainant, has come before this Court. He points out that the co-accused having already been acquitted, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the surviving prosecution against the petitioner. It is by now trite, after the decision in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), that the acquittal of a co-accused is by itself no Crl.M.C. No. 2068 of 2008 -: 2 :- sufficient reason to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. An absconding co- accused cannot be held to be entitled for any benefit or advantage on account of the judgment of acquittal rendered by the court in favour of the co-accused on the basis of an evidence in the prosecution against the co-accused. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that in this case the parties have already settled their disputes. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant and the 3rd respondent – his father, is the person whose building was allegedly set fire to. The petitioner is the nephew of the 3rd respondent. A purely private dispute had led to the alleged crime and the allegations being raised against the petitioner. The parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a joint affidavit to confirm that they have settled their disputes with the petitioner. Both respondents 2 and 3 are represented by a counsel and the counsel confirms that the parties have settled their purely personal dispute and respondents 2 and 3 have no surviving Crl.M.C. No. 2068 of 2008 -: 3 :- grievance against the petitioner. Taking the totality of circumstances into account and invoking the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287), the surviving prosecution against the petitioner in S.C.No.1132/06 may be quashed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C., it is prayed. 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, confirms that the disputes have been settled between the parties. The State has no objection against the quashing of proceedings invoking the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot. The dispute is one which is purely private and personal between the parties, no public policy or public interest is involved. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot can be invoked notwithstanding the fact that the offence alleged is a non-compoundable offence. 5. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) S.C.NO.1132/06 pending before the Assistant Sessions Crl.M.C. No. 2068 of 2008 -: 4 :- Court, Vadakara, against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. (c) The proceedings under Sec.446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioner or his sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 2068 of 2008 -: 5 :- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/