IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4685 of 2008() ------------------------- SC.2207/2006 of II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- JAYAPRASAD @ SURESH, AGED 38, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, T.C. 43/646, VALIYAVEEDU LANE, KAMALESHWARAM WARD, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): CW1 ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL RAHIM, AGED 31, (CW1), S/O.ABDUL KHADIR, T.C. 46/137, VALIYAVILAKOM VEEDU, BEEMAPALLY WARD, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR ADV. SRI.K.S.SUMESH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4685 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 I.P.C. That is the only non compoundable offence alleged against the petitioner. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The case has been committed to the Court of Session. Trial has not commenced. 2. At this juncture the petitioner has come to this Court along with the 2nd respondent to apprise this Court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and the 2nd respondent/victim has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. The dispute is one which is purely private and personal between the contestants. Enraged by a dispute regarding payment of interest, the accused/petitioner is alleged to have attacked the victim/2nd respondent with a bottle causing simple injuries to him. 3. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent have appeared before this Court through counsel. They submit that the Crl.M.C. No.4685 of 2008 2 disputes have been settled amicably. The 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit to apprise the Court of the fact that the disputes have been settled and all offences alleged against the petitioner have been compounded by the 2nd respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the victim/2nd respondent pray, the learned Public Prosecutor after taking instruction does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary 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], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769 (SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner. In coming to this conclusion, I have particularly perused the records to ascertain the nature of the dispute, the motive as also the nature of the injury allegedly suffered by the 2nd respondent. 5. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; b) S.C.No.2207 of 2006, pending before the Second Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Trivandrum pending against Crl.M.C. No.4685 of 2008 3 the petitioner herein, in which the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed; c) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties, shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-