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. 3916 of 2008() ---------------------------------- CC. 477/2007 OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. ......... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:- ------------------------ P.S. THAMBI @ KUNDANNUR THAMBI, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT PUTHUVALSTHALATH, KUNDANNUR MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLIC E, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OFKERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 031. 2. THOMAS, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAVALUR KARA, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.A.H.NAJMAL BY 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. 3916 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 387 IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. Crux of the allegations is that the petitioner who allegedly is the head of a goonda gang in Kundannoor locality, demanded goonda fee of Rs.7 lakhs from the defacto complainant who was attempting to fill about 7 acres of land with earth. Investigation is complete. Final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Trial has not commenced. 2. At this stage the petitioner, along with the defacto complainant/2nd respondent herein, has come before this Court to apprise the court of the fact that they have settled and compromised the issue and the 2nd respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. Petitioner prays that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab [2008 (3) KLT 19] may be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution Crl.M.C. No. 3916 OF 2008 -:2:- against the petitioner. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application very vehemently. He points out that the petitioner indulges himself in goonda activities. He has already been arrested and detained in prison under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 2007. The prosecution is not satisfied that there is a genuine and bonafide settlement. Even assuming that there is a settlement and composition of offences which are not compoundable, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot and may not be invoked to bring to premature termination of a prosecution for non-compoundable offences solely for the reason that the victim has been prevailed upon to agree to the terms of the accused. At any rate the offence in the instant case must be reckoned as one against the society at large and it cannot be reckoned as one which is personal and private between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that this is not a fit case in which the dictum in Madan Mohan (supra) can be invoked. The said dictum cannot be invoked merely on proof of the alleged settlement/composition. This court has adverted to the degree of Crl.M.C. No. 3916 OF 2008 -:3:- care and caution that is required, before invoking the dictum in Madan Mohan (supra) in two earlier decisions, it is pointed out. Following 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], the case against the petitioner cannot be brought to premature termination, submits the learned Prosecutor. Against the petitioner there are as many as nine other cases charged. He is included in the roudy list of the concerned police station also. Notwithstanding the fact that some of these cases have ended in acquittal, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may not be invoked in favour of the petitioner, it is prayed. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances including the dictum in the said three decisions referred above, I am certainly not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where premature termination of the prosecution against the petitioner should be achieved by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is certainly not a fit case where the dictum in Madan Mohan (supra) Crl.M.C. No. 3916 OF 2008 -:4:- can be invoked. Sufficient, satisfactory and compelling reasons, to accept the composition of an offence which the parliament in its wisdom has declared to be non-compoundable, have not been shown to exist. This Crl.MC, in these circumstances, is dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 3916 OF 2008 -:5:- Crl.M.C. No. 3916 OF 2008 -:6:-