IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2354 of 2008() ------------------------- SC.244/2006 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CRIME NO.134/05 OF KALIKAVU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: 3RD ACCUSED ----------------------- RINEESH.A.V., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.KUTTY HASSAN, AARUVEETIL HOUSE, MALIAKKAL, AMBALAKKADAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: STATE/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIKAVU POLICE STATION. ADDL. 3. SMT.BINDU, D/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT VELAKANDY HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM. (Addl.3rd respondent is impleaded as per order dt.25.07.08 in Crl.M.Appl. No.3908 of 2008) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN FOR ADDL.R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2354 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 3rd accused in a prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 366 A r/w 34 I.P.C. Altogether there were 4 accused persons. Cognizance was taken. But the petitioner was not available for trial. The trial against the co-accused proceeded. They were found not guilty and acquitted as per Annexure-A2 judgment. 2. The petitioner has now come to this Court along with the defacto complainant, ie. the additional 3rd respondent, the mother of the victim minor girl. It is reported that the disputes have been settled between the parties and the additional 3rd respondent and the victim minor girl have compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. The co-accused having already been acquitted and the parties having settled their disputes and the 3rd respondent and her minor daughter (the victim) having already compounded the offence Crl.M.C. No.2354 of 2008 2 allegedly committed by the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the offence is not compoundable, the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked and premature termination of the proceedings may be brought about, pray the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, ie. the mother of the victim minor girl, has filed an affidavit to confirm that the disputes have been settled and that the alleged offence has been compounded by her and the victim-her minor daughter. 3. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the additional 3rd respondent as also the affidavit filed by the additional 3rd respondent that the parties have settled their disputes and the alleged offence has been compounded by the additional 3rd respondent and the victim, her minor daughter. I am satisfied from Annexure-A2 judgment rendered in the trial against the co-accused that no useful purpose will be served by continuing with the prosecution Crl.M.C. No.2354 of 2008 3 against the petitioner. If legally possible and permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination. 4. But the offence under Section 366 A I.P.C is not legally compoundable and the counsel, in these circumstances, rely on the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287]. The learned counsel submit that the ground realities may be taken into account. The nature of the allegations may be looked into. The alleged victim minor girl had gone away from her house in search of a friend of hers and it was when she was found at odd hours that the alleged incident took place. It is pointed out that no specific overt act has been committed against the said minor child and that all the witnesses having turned hostile, the co-accused have already been found not guilty and acquitted. 5. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no objection against quashing of proceedings Crl.M.C. No.2354 of 2008 4 against the petitioner. 6. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded to agree that this is an eminently fit case where taking note of the ground realities, without taking any technical approach and in the interests of saving judicial time, the composition can be accepted in accordance with the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination. 7. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is, allowed; ii) L.P No.62 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Manjeri against the petitioner herein (split up C.P) is hereby quashed; iii) The proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner and his sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) Crl.M.C. No.2354 of 2008 5 rtr/-