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. 2160 of 2007() ------------------------- CC.444/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM CRIME NO.6/2004 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED; ----------------------- 1. GRACY, S/O.SICILY FERNANDEZ, PRINCY BHAVAN, NEAR KOTTOOR AMBALAM, PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. PRINCE N.PANICKER, S/O.LUKOSE PANICKER, PRINCY BHAVAN, NEAR KOTTOOR AMBALAM, PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. LUKOSE PANICKER, S/O.KOSHY PANICKER, PRINCY BHAVAN, NEAR KOTTOOR AMBALAM, PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SOBERS, S/O.VINCENT, PRATHIBHA MANDIRAM, HOUSE NO.16, KARTHIYA NAGAR, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB ADV. SRI.V.ANIL (K/1480/98) FOR R2 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.2160 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 332 r/w 34 I.P.C. The 1st accused, a woman is employed in the health department. The 2nd respondent, the de facto complainant is a colleague of hers. Petitioners/accused 2 and 3 are the son and husband respectively of the 1st petitioner/accused. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons is that they, in furtherance of their common intention had attacked the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on account of animosity arising from the fact that provident fund loan bill submitted by the 1st accused was not properly attended to by the 2nd respondent. Investigation was conducted. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. Later further investigation was conducted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and a negative final report was filed after such investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate did not close the proceedings accepting the negative further final report and it is thus that C.C.No.444 of 2004 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kollam is continuing against the petitioners. Crl.M.C. No.2160 of 2007 2 2. At this juncture the petitioners and the 2nd respondent have come before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that all outstanding disputes between them have been settled and the 2nd respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions submits that the dispute is one which is private and personal between the two employees working in the same office. No issues of public interest or public justice are directly involved, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the 2nd respondent pray; the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied 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 (3) KLT 19], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [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 now pending against the petitioners. Crl.M.C. No.2160 of 2007 3 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; b) C.C.No.444 of 2004 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kollam in which the petitioners are the accused and the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed; c) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C, shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-