IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3063 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.99/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KEEZHATTOOR VEETTIL SURESH, 25 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KUNNINTHADAM, BY ADV. SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.SADHIK, 30 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMEDI BAVA, KALATHIL HOUSE MADAYI LAKSHAMVEEDU, COLONY, MADAYI AMSOM, KANNUR TALUK. 3. K.SHAFI, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMEDI BAVA, DO.DO. 4. NABEESA, 68 YEARS, DO.DO. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH FOR R2-4 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3063 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner was arrayed as the 13th accused in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 447 and 323 r/w 149 I.P.C. All the co-accused have already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted, it is submitted, vide Annexure-A5 judgment. The petitioner was not available for trial and the case against him has hence been split up and re-filed. That case against the petitioner is now pending. 2. During the pendency of those proceedings, the petitioner has now come before this Court along with the victims-PWs 1 to 3 who were examined in the earlier prosecution, to apprise this Court of the fact that the disputes have been settled and the victims, ie. respondents 2, 3 and 4 herein have settled their disputes with the petitioner. They have compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the composition may be accepted and the further proceedings against the 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 Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287]. An application for composition Crl.M.C. No.3063 of 2008 2 duly signed by the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 and counter signed by their respective counsel is also filed. 3. I am satisfied, from the submissions made at the Bar and from the joint statement filed, that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and that there has been a genuine and bona fide composition of the alleged offences committed by the petitioner by respondents 2 to 4. If legally possible and permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination. 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, confirms that the matter has been settled. The learned Public Prosecutor reports that the State has no objection against quashing of proceedings against the petitioner. 5. The mere fact that the co-accused have been acquitted is no reason, in the light of the dictum in [Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552], to concede to the petitioner any benefit or advantage. But I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 that the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab can safely be imported and premature Crl.M.C. No.3063 of 2008 3 termination of proceedings can be brought about. I take note of the fact that the allegations of unlawful assembly cannot now be raised in the light of acquittal of the co-accused. It can further be seen that the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 have settled their disputes. The dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab can, I am satisfied, safely be pressed into service and further proceedings against the petitioner can be prematurely terminated. I take note of the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab which mandates that ground realities must be taken note of by a court and an unnecessary technical stand should not be taken. All the substantive offences alleged are compoundable. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that this is certainly a fit case where the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab can be applied. 6. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is, allowed; ii) C.C.No.99 of 2008 against the petitioner is hereby quashed; iii) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, against the petitioner and his sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-