IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4929 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.1200/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- 1. BIJU, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, THITTAMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE & TALUK. 2. MADHU, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KARIPPALIL HOUSE, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE & TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.IYPE JOSEPH SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BOSE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, KUNNUMPURAM HOUSE, VAYPURU MURI, KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4929 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January 2009 O R D E R Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 294(b) and 452 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Trial has not commenced. At this juncture, the petitioners/accused along with the victim/2nd respondent herein have come before this court to apprise this court of the fact that all outstanding disputes between them have been settled and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. It is contended that the offence under Section 294(b) and 452 I.P.C are not really made out and at any rate, the offences having been compounded by the second respondent/victim there is no necessity or justification in the prosecution being continued. 2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms settlement/composition and that State has no objection against quashing of proceedings. The dispute is one which is purely private and personal between them. The statement of the de facto complainant was recorded to confirm settlement/composition, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.No. 4929/08 2 3. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287], Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008(3) KLT 769(SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT 417 SC] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioners. 4. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C No.1200/08 pending before the learned J.F.C.M- Chengannur in which the petitioners are the accused and the second respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No. 4929/08 3 Crl.M.C.No. 4929/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008