IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4944 of 2008 --------------------------------- (C.C. NO. 1698/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,KOLLAM) ............ PETITIONER: ------------------- MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, MURALI BHAVANAM VEETTIL, ATTORMELATHIL, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPE.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION. 3. RAJANI, D/O. N. MADHAVA PANICKER, NEDIATHU PADITTATHIL, ANAYADI, SOORANADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB, R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4944 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.494 IPC. Cognizance has already been taken by the learned Magistrate. Trial has not commenced. During the pendency of the proceedings, parties have settled their disputes. It is prayed that the composition may be accepted and the proceedings may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 2. I am not persuaded to agree. The offence is compoundable under Sec.320(2) Cr.P.C. The parties can get the relief of composition by moving the learned Magistrate under Sec.320 Cr.P.C. I find absolutely no justification in the prayer to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. Crl.M.C. No. 4944 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not available in India and that if the personal presence of the petitioner were insisted by the learned Magistrate, that would cause unnecessary difficulties and hardship. I find no reason why such insistence must be made. This position has been clarified beyond doubt in the decision in Baiju v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 1082). 4. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed without any fetter on the rights of the parties to move the learned Magistrate under Sec.320 Cr.P.C. to accept composition. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 4944 of 2008 -: 3 :-