IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 583 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.195/2005 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: 4TH ACCUSED -------------------------- SUBRAMONIAN, MANAGER, ICICI BANK M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. P.K.HARIDAS, PARVATHY SADANAM UDAYAMPEROOR, NANAKUNNAM VILLAGE KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDL. R3 SENTHIL KUMAR, MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD. ICICI BANK TOWERS 5TH FLOOR WEST WING 93, SANTHOMME, HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI IMLEADED AS ADDL. THIRD RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DT. 3.9.2008 IN CRL. M.A.4760/08 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI. S.U. NAZAR BY ADV SRI.S.RAJEEV FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------- CRL. M.C. No. 583 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th October, 2008. O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused and the third respondent is the first accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 IPC. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The crux of the allegation is that the petitioner and the third respondent who are officials of the ICICI Bank Ltd. had committed breach of trust and misappropriation in respect of certain shares entrusted to them as employees of the bank by a customer i.e the defacto complainant, the second respondent herein. 2. The crime in turn was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the second respondent herein wherein he is arrayed as the first petitioner and the third respondent as also two others as accused. The complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and it is after completing the investigation that in the said crime the final report was filed. Cognizance was Crl.M.C.583/08 2 taken and the matter is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam as C.C.195/05. 3. At this stage the petitioner and the third respondent along with the second respondent have come before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes willingly and voluntarily and that the second respondent does not now want to further prosecute the petitioner and the third respondent. All outstanding disputes have been settled. The offences allegedly committed by the petitioner and the third respondent have been compounded by the second respondent. Notiwthstanding the fact that the offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr,.P.C. the composition may be accepted and premature termination may be brought out by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel. He confirms that a joint statement has been filed by the second respondent along with the petitioner herein, to confirm that there has been Crl.M.C.583/08 3 settlement and composition. 4. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. The learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application. I am satisfied that if legally permissible the composition can be accepted. 5. The offence is of course not compoundable but the counsel pray that the dictum laid down in Madhan Mohan Abboot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287) may be invoked to prematurely terminate the proceedings against the accused persons. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where such course can be adopted. In the absence of opposition from the learned Prosecutor it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. Suffice it to say that the dispute is one which is purely personal and private between the accused and the defacto complainant. In the result: a) this criminal M.C. Is allowed. b) C.C.195/05 pending against the petitioner herein and the third respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in which Crl.M.C.583/08 4 the second respondent herein is the defacto complainant is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say that the proceedings if any pending against the petitioner and the third respondent and the sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C shall be disposed of in accordance with law. R. BASANT JUDGE jj