IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 68 of 2009() ----------------------- CC.602/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1: ---------------------------- C.V.SHAHULHAMEED, NEELAKKUYILIL HOUSE, CHULLIKKODE P.O., KIZHISSERY, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- 1. K.MUJEEB, S/O.CHEKKU, MUNEERA MANZIL, ARAKKINAR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB R1 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 68 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner, along with his wife, faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 465 and 471 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the offences were committed in respect of a cheque handed over to the defacto complainant by the petitioner. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The co-accused, i.e. the second accused, wife of the petitioner, has already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the petitioner has been split up and refiled. The same is pending before the learned Magistrate. 2. At this stage the petitioner and the victim/first respondent have appeared before this court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes willingly and voluntarily. A joint application for composition duly signed Crl.M.C.No. 68 of 2009 2 by the rival contestants and counter signed by their counsel has also been filed. The first respondent is represented by a counsel also. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent pray, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by 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) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioner. I accept that no issues of public interest or public justice are involved and the dispute is one which is private and personal between the petitioner/accused and first respondent/victim. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.C.602 of 2007 pending before the J.F.M.C.-V, Kozhikode in which the petitioner is the sole surviving accused and the first respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed. Crl.M.C.No. 68 of 2009 3 c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm