IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4866 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 127/06 OF PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION SC.246/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD CP.2/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- 1. AHAMMEDKUTTY P.T. S/O.MUHAMMED @ BAPPU HAJI, POTTAYIL THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARINGALLATHANI, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ANVAR PASHA, S/O.NOOR MUHAMMED KUZHAMMANTHAM ROAD, KODUVAYOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-31. 2. PRAKASHAN, S/O.GOPALAN KARIMBA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB SMT.M.T.SHEEBA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4866 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 143, 147, 506(i) and 364A r/w. 149 I.P.C. Altogether there were seven accused persons. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. As the petitioners were not available for trial, the case against them was split up and refiled as C.P. 2 of 2008. The other five accused were committed to the Court of Sessions. They faced trial and were found not guilty and acquitted as per Annex.B judgment dt. 24.9.2008, which has now become final. The case against the petitioners continue to be pending before the learned Magistrate. 2. At this juncture the petitioners/accused along with the defacto complainant/second respondent have come before this Court through their counsel to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and the second respondent has compounded the offences alleged against the petitioners. Crl.M.C.No. 4866 of 2008 2 3. The crux of the allegations against the seven accused persons is that they had abducted the defacto complainant and had allegedly extracted information from the defacto complainant by resort to wanton violence. The first accused had lost substantial amount and the first accused with the help of other accused was allegedly attempting to recover such amount lost. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the second respondent/defacto complainant 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 petitioners. In coming to this conclusion I take note of the submission of the learned Prosecutor that the alleged offence is purely personal and private between the parties. Crl.M.C.No. 4866 of 2008 3 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.P. 2 of 2008 pending before the C.J.M. Palghat, registered on the basis of the final report in Crime No.127of 2006 of Palghat Town North Police Station, after splitting up the case, in which the second respondent is the defacto complainant/victim, is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm