IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4989 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.1004/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR (LP 6 OF 2008) .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEKUMAR, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, KIZHAKKEKARA VEEDU, ILAMPALLIL MURIYIL, PALLICKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATIO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. GOPINATHA PILLAI, GEETHA BHAVANAM, MANAMPUZHA MURI, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R2 R1 & 3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4989 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 294(b) I.P.C. All offences, except Section 294(b), alleged against the petitioner are compoundable. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had assaulted and caused hurt to the defacto complainant i.e. the second respondent herein and had used allegedly obscene words against the defacto complainant, his own uncle. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Trial has not commenced. The petitioner/accused and the second respondent/ defacto complainant have now come before this Court to apprise this court of the fact that all outstanding disputes between them have been settled and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No. 4989 of 2008 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even accepting all the allegations, the charge under Section 294(b) would not lie. He further submits that at any rate, the parties having settled and compounded the offences, which are purely private and personal between the parties, following 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) the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the prosecution. 3. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who does not oppose the application. The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel to confirm that the disputes have been settled and the offences compounded. 4. I am, in these circumstances, 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 the three decisions referred above can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No. 4989 of 2008 3 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.C.1004 of 2005 (LP 6 of 2008) pending before the J.F.M.C., Adoor, in which the petitioner is the sole accused and the second respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed. c) The learned Magistrate shall take necessary steps to make relevant entries in the concerned registers. d) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm