IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4228 of 2008 ---------------------------------- CC.580/2006 OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONERS/ A1 AND A2: -------------------------------------- 1. SAINUDHEEN, AGED 58, (A1), S/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA, SHAMEENA MANZIL, KAVUVILA, THIRUMALA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE. 2. RAFEEK, AGED 29, (A2), S/O. SAINUDHEEN, SHAMEENA MANZIL, KAVUVILA, THIRUMALA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHAFI, AGED 28, (CW1), S/O. LATHEEF, SHAFI NIVAS, KAVUVILA, THIRUMALA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE. 3. LATHEEF, AGED 55, (CW2), S/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA, SHAFI NIVAS, KAVUVILA, THIRUMALA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4228 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 294(b), 447 and 324 r/w. 34 I.P.C. All other offences except the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C. are compoundable. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence under Section 294(b) would not lie in the light of the dictum in Preethimon and another v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KHC 330). The counsel submits that, at any rate, the victims have compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. In these circumstances invoking the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), Nikil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC) the prosecution is liable to be quashed, it is submitted. Crl.M.C.No. 4228 of 2008 2 2. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through counsel. They have filed a statement/affidavit to confirm that the disputes have been settled and the offences alleged have been compounded by them. 3. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. No objections are raised. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding the fact that the allegations include an allegation of commission of a cognizable offence, this is an eminently fit case where powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in the decisions referred above can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioners. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.C. No. 580 of 2006, pending before the learned Addl. C.J.M., Trivandrum, in which the petitioners are the accused and respondents 2 and 3 are the victims, is hereby quashed. Crl.M.C.No. 4228 of 2008 3 c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm