IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 943 of 2009() ----------------------------------- (S.C.NO.175 OF 2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, WAYANAD). ----- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. RATNAKUMAR, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KAPPIKKUNNU, PULPALLY, SULTHANBATHERY. 2. LAKSHMI, PERUMBANAKUZHIYIL, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KAPPIKKUNNU, PULPALLY, SULTHANBATHERY. 3. BALAKRISHNAN, KAPPIKKUNNU, PULPALLY, SULTHANBATHERY. BY ADV. MR.S.M.PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KIZHAKKEDATHU RAGHAVAN, S/O.KESHAVAN, VATTAVAYAL, PULPALLY, SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.1356/2009 IN CRMC.NO.943/2009 DISMISSED 24/03/2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 943 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed to quash all the proceedings in S.C. 175/08. It is seen from the averments that the defacto complainant who is the father of the deceased is willing to file an affidavit before the Court regarding the ailment of his daughter. It is also submitted that the original records are not available before Court. It has to be remembered that the offence is of the year 1991 and I am informed by the Prosecutor that it is to commence trial by tomorrow. When the original is lost there are methods known to law whereby secondary evidence can be admitted and the matter can be proceeded with and if there are any legal obstacles the parties can certainly raise that legal objection and that has to be considered by the Court where the matter is pending. But that does not mean that it is ground for quashing the prosecution or to do away with the whole case. Further with respect to the application of settlement in matters in Manoj CRL.M.C. 943 OF 2009 -:2:- Sharma's case (Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417), in paragraph 23 one of the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court had made it very clear that there can be no doubt that a case u/s 302 IPC or other serious offences like those u/s 395 or 307 or 304(B) IPC cannot be compounded and hence the prosecution in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. or in a writ jurisdiction on the basis a compromise. The Apex Court had cautioned that “after all, a crime is an offence against society, and not merely against a private individual.” So the Apex Court of course had held in cases that whether it is of a personal nature or whether it is in a matrimonial dispute it can be encouraged to a limited extend so that the harmonious relationship is not put at peril by prosecuting a person. But here the offence involved is S.304B. I do not propose to invoke jurisdiction u/s 482 to quash the complaint on that basis. As stated by me earlier if there are legal, tenable contentions it can all be raised at the CRL.M.C. 943 OF 2009 -:3:- stage of trial and the Court is bound to consider and pass appropriate orders. I do not propose to interfere and quash at this stage and therefore this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-