IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2110 of 2008() ------------------------- C.C.NO.46/08 OF J.M.F.C-V, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.10 ------------------------- N.K.SWARAJ, S/O.SWAMINATHAN, ODAYAKKANDI PARAMBA, KADALUNDI AMSOM, PAZHANCHANNUR DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. N.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, NANDANARKKANDI PARAMBA, KADALUNDI AMSOM, PAZHANCHANNUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2110 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 10th accused in a prosecution initiated by the 1st respondent by filing a private complaint. All the co- accused have by now been found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner was not available for trial. The case against him was hence split up and refiled. Such refiled case is pending even now. 2. The petitioner has come to this court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked. He relies on Annexure-B judgment in which all the available co-accused who faced trial were found not guilty and acquitted, inter alia, on the basis of a statement filed by the complainant that he has no surviving grievance. The counsel submits that no useful purpose will be served by continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner, the complainant having already compounded the offence against the petitioner. Some of the offences alleged are compoundable. But some of the offences are non compoundable. In these circumstances, the counsel prays that the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW Crl.M.C. No.2110 of 2008 2 2287] may be invoked and premature termination of the proceedings may be brought about. 3. The respondent/complainant has appeared through counsel. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that it is true that the case against the petitioner has been compounded and all the outstanding disputes have been settled. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the 1st respondent/complainant has no objection and in fact wants the proceedings against the petitioner to be quashed. In as much as some non compoundable offences are also included in the complaint, the complainant is not able to bring the proceedings to premature termination. 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no objection against quashing of proceedings against the petitioner. 5. I am satisfied, on a consideration of all the relevant inputs, that this is an eminently fit case where the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab can and ought to be invoked and proceedings brought to premature termination. The dispute is one which is personal and private between the parties and no public interest or policy is involved, it is asserted, conceded and accepted. 6. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is, allowed; Crl.M.C. No.2110 of 2008 3 ii) C.C.No.46 of 2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-V, Kozhikode, against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 7. It is submitted at the Bar that no proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C is pending against the petitioner. If there be any such proceedings, needless to say, it must be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-