IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4636 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 303/08 OF VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------- VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, PADASSERY HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. GEORGE, S/O. MATHAI, KANNOTHIKUZHI HOUSE, PEELAMUZHI DESOM, KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN FOR R2 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4636 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. He is the sole accused. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. There is only one victim/injured. He is the defacto complainant, who has been arrayed as the second respondent in this case. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Committal proceedings has been registered. The order of committal has not been passed so far. 2. At this juncture the petitioner/accused and the defacto complainant/R2 have come before this Court to apprise the court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No. 4636 of 2008 2 3. The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The counsel confirms that the matter has been settled. An affidavit duly attested by a Notary Public is produced to confirm such settlement. The parties are neighbours. There is a civil dispute between them regarding the right of way. Both the petitioner and the second respondent are above the age of 60 years, accepts the learned Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent pray, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where 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) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioner. 5. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed. Crl.M.C.No. 4636 of 2008 3 b) C.P. 140 of 2008, pending before the J.F.M.C., Chalakudy, in which the petitioner is the accused and the second respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm