IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2275 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.218/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: IST ACCUSED ------------------------------ M.P.NISHAD, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 27 YEARS, ASMABI MANZIL, PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM, CHALAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENTS: STATE & DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.P.SHAJI, S/O.VENUGOPALAN, SECRETARY, YUVA SAMSKARIKA SAMITHI, RESIDING AT KOVVUMMAL HOUSE, THEKKAN MANAL, P.O.CHALAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. JAI GEORGE FOR R1 SMT.K.B.REKHA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2275 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner along with co-accused faced indictment as the 1st accused in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 427 and 380 IPC. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner along with co-accused were members of an unlawful assembly and trespassed into a club causing damage to the furniture in the club. They are further alleged to have taken away the carrom board and an emergency light of the club without the consent and knowledge of the 2nd respondent, the defacto complainant. He is the secretary of the club. 2. Final report was filed after investigation. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The available co-accused were proceeded against and they faced trial. Thus, accused 2 to 4 and 6 & 7 were found not guilty and acquitted. Accused Nos. 1 and 5 were not available. The case against them was split up. The split up case is now pending as CC No.218/07. 3. The petitioner along with the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant has come before this Court now to report to the court Crl.M.C. No. 2275 OF 2008 2 that all their disputes have been settled harmoniously and the defacto complainant does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioner. Some of the offences alleged are not compoundable and in these circumstances the parties are unable to get the proceedings terminated by filing appropriate application before the learned Magistrate under Section 320 Cr.P.C. They have hence come to this Court to report settlement of the disputes and composition of the offences allegedly committed. The 2nd respondent has appeared through counsel. An affidavit of the 2nd respondent has been filed duly attested by a counsel. 4. I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case that the matter has been settled and the defacto complainant/2nd respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. If legally permissible and possible, I am satisfied that composition can be accepted and premature termination can be brought about. But as stated earlier some of the offences are not compoundable, counsel relies on the dictum in Madam Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287]. 5. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. The learned Crl.M.C. No. 2275 OF 2008 3 Prosecutor does not raise any objections. Having considered all the relevant inputs, 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 Madam Mohan Abbot (Supra), can safely be invoked and premature termination of the proceedings can be brought about. 6. In the result: i. This petition is allowed. ii. CC No.218/07 pending before the JFMC-I Kannur in so far as it relates to the petitioner/1st accused is hereby quashed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 2275 OF 2008 4 Crl.M.C. No. 2275 OF 2008 5