IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3152 of 2008() ------------------------- LP.71/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI CRIME NO.26/1997 OF CHALISSERY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- SUBAIR, S/O. HAMSA, KODIYIL HOUSE, P.O. EDAPPAL, PONNANI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH RESPONDENTS: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VALSALA, D/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, MUNDAM VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, SANDHYA NIVAS, PERINGODE, NAGALASSERY VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3152 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 4th accused and he faced indictment along with the co-accused for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 452 and 363 r/w 149 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly who trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and took away her husband using force. The crime was registered. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 354 and 363 r/w 149 I.P.C. Altogether there were 7 accused persons. Accused 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 have already been found not guilty and acquitted in two separate trials, one against accused No.3 and the other against accused 1, 5, 6 and 7. The case against accused 2 and 4 has been split up. It remains in the list of Long Pending Cases and is pending as L.P.No.71 of 2001 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner is Crl.M.C. No.3152 of 2008 2 totally unjustified. it will be a non productive and wasteful venture. The victim/defacto complainant has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. The offences under Sections 143, 147 and 148 as also the substantive offences under Sections 452 and 363 I.P.C are not compoundable. The offences under Sections 324 and 354 I.P.C are compoundable. The defacto complainant/2nd respondent has already compounded all the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that some of the offences alleged are not compoundable, the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked and the surviving proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed, it is prayed. The extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287] may be invoked in favour of the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent to confirm that the disputes have been settled and all offences alleged have been compounded. The husband of the 2nd respondent is no more, it is submitted. Crl.M.C. No.3152 of 2008 3 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions submits that the police is satisfied that the 2nd respondent has willingly and voluntarily settled her disputes with the petitioner and has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact the allegations are totally incorrect. In fact, the husband of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent who was involved in an offence punishable under Section 377 I.P.C was led to the police station by the local people and he was produced before the police. Police had arrested him. Totally false and vexatious allegations were initially raised in an attempt to wriggle out of the inconvenient situation in which the defacto complainant and her husband placed themselves because of their conduct. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no objection against the invocation of the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab. The dispute is one which is purely private and personal between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and the alleged offences having been compounded, a technical view need not be taken. The ground realities may be taken into account and unnecessary further continuance of the Crl.M.C. No.3152 of 2008 4 prosecution against the petitioner may be brought to premature termination, submits the learned Public Prosecutor also. 6. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab can be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner. 7. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) L.P.No.71 of 2001 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, the 4th accused, is hereby quashed; iii) 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) rtr/-