IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3854 of 2008() ----------------------------------- SC. 626/07 OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS CURT (NDPS COURT) VADAKARA. .......... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED; ----------------------- SAMEER, S/O.MOIDHU, AGED 30 YEARS, PULIYARATH HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR AMSAM DESAM, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. CHATHU, S/O.KURUMBAN, AGED 54 YEARS, TRADER, POOKKOTTUMMAL HOUSE, THIRULLUR, VADAKARA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.SUDHEESH.A. FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 457 and 436 read with Section 149 IPC. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner along with five others had indulged in culpable offences after trespassing into a restaurant which remained closed. After breaking upon the said restaurant by sheer acts of gross violence, extensive damage was allegedly caused to the shop. The incident, it is alleged, occurred on account of prior political animosity. Six named persons along with about 30 others had allegedly indulged in the culpable offences taking law into their own hands. Three of the co-accused faced trial. They have been found not guilty and acquitted as per Annexure II judgment. 2. The petitioner and the first respondent have come to this Court at this juncture to apprise this Court of the fact that they have settled the dispute between them. The defacto complainant/1st respondent whose shop was trespassed into and mischief committed with fire has settled his disputes with the petitioner after receiving sufficient compensation. In these Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 -:2:- circumstances the 1st respondent does not want to further prosecute the case against the petitioner. They pray that the settlement and composition may be accepted and proceedings may be brought to premature termination as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab [2008 (3) KLT 19] and Nikhil Merchant V. C.B.I [ 2008 (30 KLT 769 (Standing Counsel)]. 3. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. Learned Prosecutor submits that the offences are not compoundable and notwithstanding the alleged composition of the offences by the defacto complainant/victim, the State is unable to agree that the prosecution can be brought to premature termination. Extensive loss have been caused to the restaurant frequented by the members of the public. It was an open act of violation of law with political motive which had allegedly triggered the incident and the learned Public Prosecutor submits that in a democratic country wedded to rule of law, composition of non-compoundable offences committed on the basis of political animosity and ill will deserves to Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 -:3:- be frouned upon. Learned Public Prosecutor points out that this Court has already considered and expressed that caution and reservation which must be exercised before the application for composition of a non-compoundable offence is accepted by the Court. The decisions in Babeesh @ Babin Kumar v. S.I. of Police [2008(3) KHC 713] and Santhosh v. State of Kerala [2008 (3) KLT 240] are referred to by the learned Prosecutor. 4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. I have taken note of the nature of the allegations and the nature of the damage caused. I take note of the fact that political animosity has prompted and provoked the violence in the instant case. I am unable to reckon the crime committed in the instant case as one which is private and personal between the contestants. I agree with the learned Prosecutor that a court cannot lose sight of the impact which the grossly culpable acts, created on the public mind. I am satisfied that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot and Nikhil Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 -:4:- Merchant (supra) can or ought to be invoked. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to stand trial before the Court concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is employed abroad and if unnecessary insistences were made on the personal presence of the petitioner on all dates of postings, that would cause great hardship and loss to him. Petitioner is already on bail, it is submitted. I find no reason why the learned Sessions Judge need insist on the personal presence of the petitioner ritualistically, unless his presence is necessary for making further progress in the trial. 6. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. 7. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 -:5:- Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 -:6:- Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 -:7:-