IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 90 of 2009() ----------------------- C.C.NO.98/05 OF THE JFCM COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA. PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHANMUGHAN, S/O.CHINNASWAMI NO.25-H HOUSING COLONY GHANDHI NAGAR, CHERIAMPATTI PALLUTHI ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): 1 ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MVELIBHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-20. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. BY ADV. SMT. MOLLY JACOB (R2) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 90 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.420 and 468 read with Sec.34 IPC. Altogether, there were two accused persons. The 1st accused was a contractor and the 2nd accused is the person engaged by the contractor to transport bags of sugar in his vehicle. The crux of the allegations is that there was a short supply of 30 bags of sugar to the Civil Supplies Corporation; but documents were created to make it appear that the entire quantity had been delivered. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. The 1st accused is said to be absconding. The case against the petitioner has been split up, it is submitted. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court asserting that Crl.M.C. No. 90 of 2009 -: 2 :- the disputes between the petitioner and the de facto complainant/ Civil Supplies Corporation have been settled and the Civil Supplies Corporation has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, invoking the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287); Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417) it is prayed that the surviving prosecution against the petitioner may now be quashed. 3. Notice was given to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent/Civil Supplies Corporation, has entered appearance through counsel and has filed a statement. It is submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – and a statement to that has been filed, that there has been no composition of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner herein. It is true that the value of the article short supplied has been recovered from the contractor; but the Civil Supplies Corporation has not compounded the offences alleged, it is submitted. 4. It is now evident that there has been no composition as alleged by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the three decisions referred above cannot obviously be invoked. This Crl.M.C. No. 90 of 2009 -: 3 :- petition only deserves to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been making every attempt to settle the dispute in the hope that the prosecution against him can be brought to early termination. It has been pending from 2005, the alleged incident having taken place in 1997 and the crime having been registered in 1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall now be satisfied if this Court would at least issue a direction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to the learned JFCM-I, Mavelikkara, before whom the case is pending for an early disposal of the case. The said request of the petitioner does appear to me to be absolutely reasonable. The case has been pending from 2005, the crime having been registered in 1998 about an alleged incident in 1997. Appropriate directions can be issued. 6. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. (b) But it is specifically directed that the learned Magistrate shall make every endeavour to ensure that C.C.No. 98/05 is disposed of as expeditiously as possible – at any rate, within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of this order is placed before the learned Magistrate. Crl.M.C. No. 90 of 2009 -: 4 :- 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge