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. 29 of 2009() ----------------------- C.C.NO.362/1998 OF J.F.C.M, KAYAMKULAM CRL.APPEAL NO.60 OF 2003 OF ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE-II, MAVELIKKARA PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1, 2 AND 4 --------------------------------- 1. RAJU, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, VALIL MEKKEL VEEDU, PUTHUPPALLY THEKKUM MURI, PUTHUPALLI VILLAGE. 2. SADHU, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, VALIL MEKKEL VEEDU, PUTHUPPALLY THEKKUM MURI, PUTHUPALLI VILLAGE. 3. MOHANAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. LEKSHMANAN, PANAMURI KIZHAKKETHIL, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION. 2. NATARAJAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, NYAVARAKKAL VILLAGE, PUTHUPPALLY THEKKUM MURI, PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADDL. 3.BIJULAL, S/O.SADHU, VALIL THARAYIL VEEDU, PUTHUPALLITHEKKUMMURI, PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE. ADDL. 4.SURESH, S/O.VASUDEVAN, SURESH BHAVANAM, PATHIYOOR PANCHAYATH, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE. (Addl.R3 and R4 are impleaded as per order dated 30.01.09 in Crl.M.Appl.No.627/09) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM ADV. SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH 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.29 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1, 2 and 4 in an indictment initiated on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Altogether there were 14 accused persons. All accused, except accused Nos.3 and 12, were available for trial. Accused 3 and 12 have now been arrayed as additional respondents 3 and 4 in this Crl.M.C. All the other co-accused were acquitted. But the petitioners, ie. accused 1, 2 and 4 were found guilty, convicted and sentenced. The case against respondents 3 and 4 was split up and refiled. The case against respondents 3 and 4, ie. accused 3 and 12, is pending as C.C.No.105 of 2003 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kayamkulam. Against the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence of the petitioners, they preferred an appeal which was again dismissed by Annexure-A2 judgment dated 08.06.07 in Crl.Appeal No.60 of 2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara. No revision has been preferred so far in view of the settlement of the disputes and the filing of this Crl.M.C, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. Crl.M.C. No.29 of 2009 2 2. At this juncture, the petitioners have come before this Court along with respondent No.2, the defacto complainant. Additional respondents 3 and 4 have also been arrayed. It is reported that all the outstanding disputes between the surviving accused persons and the 2nd respondent have been settled harmoniously. All alleged offences have been compounded by the victim/2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit to confirm such composition/settlement. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that invoking 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)], the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence against the 3 petitioners as also the surviving prosecution against respondents 3 and 4 may be quashed. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that there has been harmonious settlement of the disputes between the parties. But the learned Public Prosecutor alertly points out to the Court that it is not a case where the trial has not commenced. Trial is over. The petitioners have been convicted. Appeal preferred against Crl.M.C. No.29 of 2009 3 the conviction has been dismissed also. However, the learned Public Prosecutor accepts that the dispute is one which is personal and private between the parties. The disputes arose from a civil dispute regarding cutting open of a pathway. Parties have settled their disputes. Interests of harmony would be served by giving a quietus to the disputes involved. 4. I have rendered my anxious consideration. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that the interests of justice will be served by accepting a composition and quashing the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence against petitioners 1 to 3 and the surviving prosecution against respondents 3 and 4 invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in the 3 decisions referred above. 5. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; b) The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners as per judgment dated 31.01.2003 in C.C.No.362 of 1998 confirmed by the judgment dated 08.06.07 in Crl.Appeal No.60 of 2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara is hereby set aside; Crl.M.C. No.29 of 2009 4 c) The surviving prosecution against respondents 3 and 4, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kayamkulam as C.C.No.105 of 2003 is quashed; d) 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/-