IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1616 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.24 OF 2007 OF THE ALAKODE POLICE STATION PETITIONER: 1ST,2ND & 3RD ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- 1. KAROTTU KAIPPAN PLAKKAL SCARIA, S/O. JOSEPH, KAROTTU KAIPPAN PLAKKAL HOUSE, VELLAD POST, NADUVIL DESOM, MANNANKUNNU,ALAKODE, KANNUR. 2. P.A. AUGUSTINE, S/O. AUGUSTIN, PANTHOTTANICKAL, NADUVIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. VALUMANNEL DEVASSIA, S/O. DOMINIQUE, NADUVIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAKODE POLICE STATION, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KAROT KAIPPAN PLAKKAN JOSE, S/O. JOSEPH, KAROT KAIPPAN PLAKKAN HOUSE, VELLAD POST, NADUVIL DESOM, MANNAN KUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA FOR R2 SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.1616 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. The crime has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the learned Magistrate which was referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The defacto complainant is the brother of the 1st accused. The crux of the allegations is that the brothers own adjacent properties. The defacto complainant had entrusted the 1st accused the responsibility of managing his property in his absence. The 1st accused allegedly created a false forged power of attorney document under which he was given authority to dispose of the said property. 2. Petitioners 2 and 3 are allegedly witnesses in that document of power of attorney. It was alleged that the petitioners in collusion have committed the offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 471 I.P.C. 3. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. It is at this stage that the petitioners/accused and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant have appeared before this Crl.M.C. No.1616 of 2008 2 Court through counsel to apprise this Court of the fact that all the disputes outstanding between them have been settled amicably and the defacto complainant has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the accused persons. Annexure-A2 agreement has been executed under which the disputes have all been settled between the parties. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel. It is confirmed that the matter has been settled and the offences have been compounded. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that no joint statement has been filed and the 2nd respondent has not turned up to file a joint statement. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigator is also satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties and the defacto complainant has compounded the offences. 4. From the statements made at the Bar and from Annexure-A2 agreement, I am satisfied, that the parties have settled their disputes and composition has been effected. If legally possible and permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and further proceedings in the crime can be brought to premature termination. Crl.M.C. No.1616 of 2008 3 5. The offences alleged include non compoundable offences. Counsel, in these circumstances, rely on the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287]. 6. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no objection against quashing of proceedings against the petitioner. 7. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that this is an eminently fit case where the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab can and ought to be invoked and proceedings brought to premature termination. The dispute is one which is personal and private between the parties and no public interest or policy is involved, it is asserted, conceded and accepted. 8. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is, allowed; ii) Crime No.224 of 2007 pending before the Alacode Police Station against the petitioners is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.1616 of 2008 4 R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.1616 of 2008 Crl.M.C. No.1616 of 2008 5 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is settled between the petitioners/accused and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, but however, prays for time to file a a joint statement or affidavit to confirm settlement/composition. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel. He prays for some time to confirm settlement and report composition. The prayer is to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287]. 2. Notice given. The learned Public Prosecutor appears for the respondent-State. The learned Public Prosecutor shall take specific instructions as to whether the State has any objection against acceptance of the prayer for quashing of proceedings in the light of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab. 3. Call on 27.06.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.1616 of 2008 6