IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3380 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.70 OF 2001 OF THANUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED SHERIFF, S/O.CHERIYA MUHAMMED HAJI, NAMBIPARAMBIL, THANALUR, TIRUR. 2. MOIDEEN, OF -DO-, -DO-. 3. BHUSHARA, W/O.MOIDEEN, OF -DO- BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SAKEENA, W/O.CHERIYA MUHAMMED HAJI, NAMBIPARAMBIL, THANALUR, TIRUR TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3380 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. Altogether there are 4 accused persons in that case. The 4th accused has not been arrayed as a petitioner or respondent in this Crl.M.C. Accused 1 and 2 are brothers. The 3rd accused is the wife of the 2nd accused. The 4th accused is a stranger. The complainant, ie. the 2nd respondent, is the second wife of the father of accused 1 and 2. A complaint was filed in the year 2001. All the 3 petitioners were arrayed as accused in that crime. After due investigation, the police submitted a negative final report. Thereafter a protest complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent as C.M.P.No.5863 of 2001 against the petitioners herein and the 4th accused. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on that private complaint and the case is pending before the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.711 of 2002. Trial in the matter is in progress and the case stood posted for 313 examination when this Crl.M.C was filed on 03.09.08. Crl.M.C. No.3380 of 2008 2 2. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent have now come before this Court through their respective counsel to apprise this Court of the fact that the disputes between them have been settled amicably. They being relatives, mediators have intervened and they have sorted out all their disputes. The 2nd respondent, in these circumstances, has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners as also the 4th accused who has not been arrayed as a party in this Crl.M.C. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel. She has filed an affidavit as Annexure-A2. It is stated categorically at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent (and the 2nd respondent in the affidavit has stated so) that all the disputes have been settled and the 2nd respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the accused persons including th petitioners herein. It is prayed that the composition may be accepted and the further proceedings in C.C.No.711 of 2002 may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar by the counsel and from the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent Crl.M.C. No.3380 of 2008 3 that there has been a genuine and voluntary settlement of the disputes and composition of all the offences allegedly committed by all the accused by the 2nd respondent. The counsel for the 2nd respondent vouches for that fact before the Court. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that if legally permissible and possible, the composition can be accepted and further proceedings in C.C.No.711 of 2002 can be discontinued. 4. But the offence under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, in these circumstances, rely on the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287]. It is submitted that the dispute is one which is purely personal and private between the parties. They having settled the disputes, no fruitful outcome is likely to result from the prosecution. In the interests of justice and in the interests of optimum use of judicial time, the ground realities may be taken into account and the proceedings may be quashed, it is prayed. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the prayer of the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. This, I am satisfied, is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary Crl.M.C. No.3380 of 2008 4 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab can be safely imported and the prosecution against the petitioner can be brought to premature termination. 6. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) C.C.No.711 of 2002 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangadi against the petitioners herein and the 4th accused in which the 2nd respondent herein is the complainant is hereby quashed; iii) Needless to say, proceedings if any pending against the petitioners or the 4th accused and their sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-