IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4099 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.333/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM CRIME NO.700/07 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED RASI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL SALAM, PUTHENVEEDU, TALAPPARA BHAGOM, VADAYAR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANVER BASHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OFKERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM IN CRIME NO.700/07. 2. NESSI FASSAL, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. FASSAL, KOZHIPPALLIL HOUSE, THALAYOLAPRAMBU DESOM, VADAYAR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY P.P. SRI.AMJAD ALI. SRI.M.A.FIROSH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4099 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Secs.323 and 354 IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. Coercive processes have hence been issued against the petitioner to procure his presence. 2. At this stage, the petitioner through counsel has come before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that the de facto complainant/victim has compounded the offences allegedly committed by him. She is willing to report such composition. It is prayed that directions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be issued to quash the proceedings accepting the composition. Crl.M.C. No. 4099 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. I am unable to understand the request. If the offences are compoundable, I find no justification for the parties rushing to this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings on the basis of such composition. Why have the petitioner and the respondent/de facto complainant come to this Court without and before approaching the learned Magistrate. No satisfactory reasons are advanced. However, in the course of submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is employed abroad and he is not able to appear before the court below. 4. Why should the petitioner appear before the court below to effect a compromise/composition? The decision in Baiju v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 1082) is authority for the proposition that the composition is an unilateral act and can be resorted to by the complainant and it is not necessary for the court to insist on the appearance of the accused to consider such prayer for composition. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner/accused is not available in India is not sufficient reason for the parties not approaching the learned Magistrate. 5. It is then submitted that a warrant of arrest has been issued and the same is pending against the petitioner. What is a warrant of arrest? Warrant of arrest is a process issued by Crl.M.C. No. 4099 of 2008 -: 3 :- the court to procure the presence of the accused. Summons is also one such process. When summons was not able to achieve its purpose, evidently a warrant of arrest has been issued. The purpose of both is only to procure the presence of the accused. Where the presence of the accused is not at all necessary to achieve the object/result of composition, I fail to understand how the mere pendency of a warrant issued can stand against the consideration of an application for composition. That cannot also be a justifiable reason for this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 6. The relief can be obtained before the trial court. If that can be done, why should this Court not entertain the application? There can be this natural query. But there must be an order and discipline in proceedings. What can normally be achieved in accordance with law by moving the subordinate court, the parties cannot be permitted to seek from this Court by invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The extraordinary inherent jurisdiction is to be invoked only in exceptional cases. Such jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter of course. This Court would be flooded with such unnecessary petitions if the court starts entertaining such applications without and before the parties move the appropriate Crl.M.C. No. 4099 of 2008 -: 4 :- courts which can grant such reliefs. For the said reason, I am not persuaded to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 7. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The respondent/de facto complainant can appear before the learned Magistrate and report to the learned Magistrate that she has compounded the offences. Thereupon, in the light of Baiju such prayer for composition can be considered. The petitioner also appear through counsel. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I direct that the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 10/11/08. On or before that date, the complainant in person and the petitioner through counsel can appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for composition. Such application shall be disposed of in accordance with law by the learned Magistrate. 9. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 4099 of 2008 -: 5 :-