IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 411 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO.211/99 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM ( LP 19/06) SC.1155/2000 of II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------------- RATHEESH, S/O.RAJAN, PUTHUVEL PUTHEN VEEDU, CHETTIKKUNU WARD, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. MAHESH KARNNA, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, 'PLAVILLA HOUSE', CHERUVAKKAL, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SRI. P.A. SALIM ADV. SRI.HARI KUMAR.S. FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 411 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner along with the co-accused faced indictment for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. as per the final report in Crime No.211 of 1999 of the Medical College Police station, Trivandrum. Altogether there were five accused persons. The petitioner was not available for trial. The other four accused faced indictment. They were found not guilty and acquitted as per Annex.B judgment dt.26.3.2003 in S.C.1155 of 2003. The case against him was split up and refiled. It was transferred to the list of long pending cases. The petitioner has subsequently been arrested and produced. The case has been recalled from the list of long pending cases. The matter is pending before the Fast Track Court-I, Trivandrum as L.P. 19 of 2006. The number of the sessions case after recall is not furnished to this court. 2. At this juncture the petitioner has come to this Court along with the sole victim to apprise this court of the fact that the Crl.M.C.No. 411 of 2009 2 parties have settled all their outstanding disputes and the defacto complainant has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. In these circumstances it is prayed that considering the fact that all the co-accused have already been acquitted and the petitioner has settled the disputes with the defacto complainant, who has compounded the offences alleged against the petitioner, the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), Nikil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC) may be invoked to bring to premature termination this unnecessary and meaningless prosecution against the petitioner. He is remaining in custody only because of the pendency of this case. Eventhough there are other cases also against him, he has already been enlarged on bail in all those cases, submits the counsel. 3. The respondent/victim has appeared before this court through counsel. The counsel confirms and an affidavit to that effect has been filed that the disputes have been settled and the offences have been Crl.M.C.No. 411 of 2009 3 compounded by the first respondent. 4. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who opposes the application. The learned Prosecutor submits that the offence alleged is not compoundable. The allegations are serious. The learned Prosecutor submits that in no view of the matter it can be held that the offences alleged are private and personal between the parties or that no issues of public justice or public interests are even indirectly involved. According to the learned Prosecutor the petitioner and the first respondent belong to two different goonda gangs and incident in this case had arisen from such feud between the two such groups of miscreants. He submits that both the petitioner and the first respondent have several crimes registered against them and in these circumstances this is not a fit case to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. Even assuming that the three decisions referred above can in an appropriate case justify such quashing of proceedings, this is not a fit case where it would be just and proper to prematurely terminate the proceedings against the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No. 411 of 2009 4 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Prosecutor. I find merit in the opposition. I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to bring to termination the prosecution against the petitioner. It is true that the decisions referred above can in an appropriate case be pressed into service to bring to termination an irrelevant and superfluous prosecution. It must be zealously ensured that the interests of public justice are not involved when the court takes upon itself the burden of following the unusual course of quashing the prosecution for a non- compoundable offence. 6. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the learned Sessions Judge must take expeditious steps to complete the trial in this case, as the accused is said to be in custody solely because of the pendency of this case. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 411 of 2009 5