IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4196 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.64/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- VARAMBUMURIYAN ABOOTTY, S/O. ALI PERUVAMBA, KUTTOOR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): STATE & INJURED PERSONS:- ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE - S.H.O. PERINGOME POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERLA, ERNAKULAM. 2. AREEKARAN MOOTAMMAL EBRAHIM, S/O. ABDULRAHIMAN, UMMANIYANUM, VAYAKKARA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBATALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. VAZHAVALAPPIL MUHAMMED ALI, S/O. EBRAHIM, DO.....DO.... 4. VAZHAVALAPPIL HAJIRA, W/O. EBRAHIM, DO......DO...... 5. ARUKARAN MOOTAMMAL MAIMOONATH, W/O. MUHAMMED ALI, DO....DO..... ADDL: 6. SALIM NANGARATH, S/O. ABDULLA, 23 YEARS, UMMINIYANAM, PERINGOME AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. .......2 -: 2 :- 7. HARIF VAZHAVALAPPIL, S/O. KOZHUMMAL ALI, 38 YEARS, VAZHAVALAPPIL, UMMINIYANAM, PERINGOME AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. AZIZ. T., S/O. PAMBADI MUHAMMED KUNHI, 25 YEARS, THAYYIL HOUSE, UMMINIYANAM, PERINGOME AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 9. NAZAR.K., S/O. MOOSANKUTTY, 37 YEARS, KANNOORKKARATHI HOUSE, NEELIRINGA, PERINGOME AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 10. MUSTHAFA PUZHAKKARA, S/O. YOUSUFF, 39 YEARS, PUZHAKKARA HOUSE, CHEEMENI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 11. IBRAHIM, S/O. MUHAMMED, 53 YEARS, ANNA HOUSE, NEAR GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, VAYAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 6 TO 11 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.7251/08 DATED 1/1/2009. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS FOR R2 TO 5 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4196 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner, along with 12 other co-accused, faced indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.143, 147, 148 and 452 read with Sec.149 IPC. All other offences alleged were compoundable offences. All the other accused have already been acquitted. The petitioner as well as respondents 6 to 11 were not available for trial and the case against them was split up. One of the accused was a juvenile and the Juvenile Court has already acquitted him (A13), it is submitted. All the other co-accused, except the petitioner herein and respondents 6 to 11, have already been found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the petitioner and respondents 6 to 11 i.e., A6 to A8, A10, A11, A15 and A17 has been split up and re-filed. 2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a Crl.M.C. No.4196 of 2008 -: 2 :- prayer that the surviving prosecution against him and respondents 6 to 11 may now be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction as enabled by the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287); Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417) inasmuch as all the four victims in the case i.e., respondents 2 to 5 herein have settled their disputes and compounded all the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner herein and respondents 6 to 11. Respondents 2 to 5 have entered appearance through counsel. They have filed affidavits to confirm that the disputes have been settled and the offences allegedly committed against them have been compounded. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 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 Sec.482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287); Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the Crl.M.C. No.4196 of 2008 -: 3 :- surviving prosecution against the petitioner and respondents 6 to 11. I take note of the nature of the allegations and the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor that the offences alleged are purely private and personal between the parties and no issues of public justice or public interest are directly involved. It is also brought to my notice that there was a counter case and Crl.M.C.No.4963/2008 is filed to quash the proceedings in the said counter case also. 4. In the result, (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) C.C.No.64/08 pending against the petitioner and respondents 6 to 11 is hereby quashed. (c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioner and respondents 6 to 11 and their sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No.4196 of 2008 -: 4 :-