IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4259 of 2008() ------------------------- LPC.73/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAPPANANGADI CRIME NO.105/2000 OF TANUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): 8TH ACCUSED --------------- MOHAMMED KOYA ALIAS GULDHAR, S/O. MOHAMMADALI, AGED 45 YEARS, MOZHIKKAL HOUSE, PARIYAPURAM AMSOM, OTTUMPURAM TANUR, MALAPPURM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KAMMUKUTTY ALIAS ABDURAHMANKUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, ASSAMAKKITHANAKATH HOUSE, SHEIK ROAD, RAYIRIMANGALAM, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4259 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner as the 8th accused faced indictment for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed. Committal Proceedings was registered. But the petitioner was not available. The co-accused who faced trial have already been found not guilty and acquitted as per Annexure-A2. There was a counter case also in which the sole accused has already been acquitted under Annexure-A3 judgment. 2. The petitioner/8th accused and the defacto complainant/sole injured-the 2nd respondent have now come before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and the 2nd respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the accused including the non compoundable offences. It is prayed that the dispute being purely personal and private between the parties and the parties having settled all their outstanding disputes, the composition by the 2nd respondent may be accepted and Crl.M.C. No.4259 of 2008 2 proceedings may be brought to premature termination by invoking 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)]. 3. The respondent has entered appearance through counsel to confirm composition/settlement. Annexure-A4 affidavit has been filed by him to confirm such composition. The case has been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases and is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Parappanangadi. 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms settlement/composition. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no objection against the quashing of proceedings accepting the composition. 5. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, 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 the 3 cases referred above can be Crl.M.C. No.4259 of 2008 3 invoked to quash the surviving prosecution against the petitioner. 6. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; b) All further proceedings in pursuance of the final report in Crime No.105 of 2000 of Tanur Police Station against the petitioner (8th accused) is hereby quashed; c) The learned Magistrate shall ensure that necessary entries are made in the concerned registers; d) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, under Section 446 Cr.P.C pending against the petitioner and his sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-