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. 4946 of 2008 --------------------------------- (C.C. NO.394/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PONNANI) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------------------- B.P. NASSAR, S/O. UMMER, CHEMBAYIL HOUSE, ERAMANGALAM.P.O, VELIYAMGOT AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION, PONNANI. 3. MUHAMMED, S/O. MOIDUNNI, KIZHAKKOT VALAPPIL VEEDU, PONNANI. *ADDL.R4. U. MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O. MAMU, KILIYIL HOUSE, ERAMANGALAM.P.O., VALIYAMOODE AMSOM DESOM. *IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/01/2009 IN CRL.M.A.NO.130/2009. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB, R3 BY ADV. SRI. SUJESH MENON. 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. 4946 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner and the Addl. 4th respondent face allegations in a prosecution for offences punishable under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. Altogether there were five accused persons. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Out of the five accused, the first accused is no more, it is submitted. Accused 3 and 5 faced separate trial and they were found not guilty and acquitted as per Annexs.A3 and A4 judgments. The prosecution is surviving so far as accused 2 and 4 are concerned. 2. At this juncture the petitioner has come before this Court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and the third respondent/victim has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner herein and the 4th respondent. Crl.M.C.No. 4946 of 2008 2 3. The third respondent has entered appearance through counsel and has filed an affidavit to confirm such settlement/composition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the third respondent/defacto complainant 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 and the 4th respondent. In coming to this conclusion I take note of the verdict of acquittal secured by two of the co-accused as also the submission of the learned Prosecutor that no interests or public justice are involved and the dispute is one which is purely personal and private between the parties. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. Crl.M.C.No. 4946 of 2008 3 b) C.C. 394 of 2007 pending before the J.F.M.C., Ponnani against the petitioner herein and the 4th respondent, in which the third respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed. c) 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