IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4475 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.22/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.P.HAMSAKOYA, S/O.SAYDALI, AGED 70 YEARS, KUNJIPANAMPARAMB HOUSE, NADAKAVU P.O., CALICUT. 2. SHAFEEQ, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.K.P.HAMSAKOYA, KUNJIPANAMPARAMB HOUSE, NADAKAVU P.O., CALICUT. 3. T.SADIQUE, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, THOPIL, KALATHIKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, NADAKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLAYIL POLICE STATION KOZHIKODE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4475 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November 2008 O R D E R Petitioners are the victim (first petitioner), the de facto complainant (the second petitioner - son of the first petitioner) and the accused (third petitioner). The third petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offences punishable inter alia under Sections 324 and 308 I.P.C. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Committal proceedings has been registered. 2. At this juncture, the petitioners have come before this court together to apprise this court of the fact that all the disputes between them have been settled and that the victims have compounded the offences allegedly committed by the third petitioner. The offence under Section 308 I.P.C is not compoundable. In these circumstances, the petitioners have come before this court with the prayer that the composition may be accepted and the prosecution against the third petitioner may be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Crl.M.C.No.4475/08 2 Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287], Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008(3) KLT 769(SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT 417 SC]. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that the disputes have been settled between the parties. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the dispute is one which is personal and private between the accused and the victim and no issues of public interest or public policy are involved. The learned Public Prosecutor, in response to a specific query, further submits that no serious injury was suffered by the victim also. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, 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, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma (Supra) can safely be invoked to bring the prosecution to premature termination. 5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. Crl.M.C.No.4475/08 3 b) CP.No.22/08 pending before the learned J.F.C.M-IV, Kozhikode against the third petitioner in which the first petitioner is the victim and the second petitioner is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4475/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4475/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008