IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2015 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.118/2008 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- 1. M.L.JOY, MALPAN HOUSE, KAVANAT DESOM, MATTATHUR KUNNU, KODAKARA. 2. PHILOMINA PAUL, PULLOKARAR HOUSE, MATTATHUR KUNNU, KODAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. ANTONEY, S/O.PORINCHU, MALIYAKAL HOUSE, PUTHUKAVU DESOM, MANAKULANGARA, KODAKARA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODAKARA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MANOJ FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJED ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2015 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June 2008 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B read with 34 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners/accused and the first respondent/ de facto complainant have come before this court with the prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the investigation pending in the crime. The short plea urged is that the first respondent has settled the disputes and had compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. All the offences alleged are compoundable under Section 320 I.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287], there is absolutely no necessity for the investigating officer to proceed further with the case. It is in these circumstances prayed that the F.I.R may be quashed and Crl.M.C.No.2015/08 2 the investigation may be brought to premature termination by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Of course, this court does not lack jurisdictional competence in a case like the instant one to grant the relief sought. But invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot certainly be a matter of course. Sufficient, satisfactory and compelling reasons must be shown to exist to persuade this court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court. Litigants cannot be permitted to rush to this court with petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C when effective remedies can be obtained from subordinate authorities. At the risk of repetition, it has to be stated that unless sufficient, satisfactory and compelling reasons are available and the interests of justice compellingly persuade the court to resort to such a course, the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C need not, cannot and ought not to be invoked. The offence being compoundable there is no need to invoke the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287]. 5. This is a typical case of a compoundable offence having been compounded by the contestants during the pendency of the investigation. This court had considered the said aspect in detail in Yesudas v. S.I. of Police [2008(1)KLT Crl.M.C.No.2015/08 3 245]. The petitioners and the first respondent can either adopt the course of reporting settlement/composition before the investigating officer or in the alternative they can report such composition before the learned Magistrate. The said decision has considered the courses open to parties placed in an identical situation. They can get relief from the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded to agree that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or need be invoked. 6. I repeat that it is not a case of this court not having jurisdictional competence. This is not a case where the petitioners may not be entitled for their relief; but they have come to this court prematurely with the request to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as a matter of course. This has certainly got to be discouraged. Permitting such a course to be adopted by one individual will be opening the flood gates of a lot of similar unnecessary litigation before that court. I am not hence accepting the said request. 7. This Crl.M.C is hence dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.2015/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.2015/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007