IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4822 of 2008 ---------------------------------- (L.P. NO. 36/2003 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERAMBRA) ........... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------------------- ASHRAF A.T, S/O. AMMOTTY, ATAVIL HOUSE, P.O.KAVIL, NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MADAVI, D/O.KUNHAN PARAPPURATH HOUSE, NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB, R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NIJOY. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4822 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner as the second accused faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. All other offeces are compoundable. Altogether there were three accused persons. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The other two accused were available for trial and they, after due trial, were found not guilty and acquitted as per the judgment. 2. At this juncture the petitioner/accused along with the defacto complainant/first 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 first respondent has compounded the offences alleged against the petitioner, including the non-compoundable offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. Crl.M.C.No. 4822 of 2008 2 3. The first respondent has entered appearance through counsel, who confirms the settlement/composition. An affidavit duly attested by the counsel was filed to confirm such settlement/composition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the first respondent/defacto complainant/victim 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 petitioner, which is now included in the list of long pending cases. 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 petitioner and the first respondent. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. Crl.M.C.No. 4822 of 2008 3 b) L.P. 36 of 2003 pending before the J.F.M.C.-I, Perambra, on the basis of the final report in Crime No.229 of 1998 of Perambra Police Station, in which the first respondent is the defacto complainant/victim, is hereby quashed. c) The learned Magistrate shall take necessary steps to make entries in the relevant registers about the quashing of proceedings. d) 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