IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 232 of 2009() ------------------------ C.C.NO.131 OF 2008 OF J.F.C.M-I, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- RAMLA, AGED 36 YRS,W/O.KABEER, ARSHINA MANZIL,PALACE WARD,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.E.RAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. FARIZA,AGED 49 YRS,W/O.ASHARAF, PAINGAMADATHIL MARFANA HOUSE,CHUNGAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY P.PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB ADV. SMT.HUMERA MOHAMED ALI FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009 ALONG WITH CRMC.NO.242 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. Nos.232 & 242 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioners in these cases are accused in C.C.Nos.131 of 2008 and 493 of 2008, both pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Alappuzha. These cases are in the nature of a case and counter case. In C.C.No.131 of 2008, there is only one accused (the petitioner herein) and she faces allegations, inter alia, under Section 294(b) I.P.C. That is the only non compoundable offence. The other offences are compoundable. The 1st respondent is the sole victim. Cognizance has been taken. Trial has not commenced. The petitioner and the 1st respondent have now come before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that the disputes between them have been settled amicably and that the 1st respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. The offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C is not compoundable. The dispute is one which is purely personal and private between the parties and at any rate no offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C is made out. In any view of the matter in view of the composition Crl.M.C. Nos.232 & 242 of 2009 2 between the parties, the prosecution may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, it is prayed. The 1st respondent has entered appearance and has filed an affidavit to confirm such composition/settlement. The counsel confirms such composition. 2. In C.C.No.493 of 2008, there are 3 accused persons. All the 3 of them are before me as the petitioners. There is only one victim in that case. The 1st respondent is the said victim. The petitioners face indictment for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 452 I.P.C. All other offences alleged are compoundable offences. In this case also the petitioners/accused and the victim/1st respondent have come before this Court through their counsel to apprise this Court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and the 1st respondent has compounded the offences alleged. Inasmuch as there has been settlement and composition, it is prayed that C.C.No.493 of 2008 may also be quashed. 3. In both these cases, counsel for the accused and the victims pray, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer and I am satisfied that these are eminently fit cases where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Crl.M.C. Nos.232 & 242 of 2009 3 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)] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination these prosecutions which have now become unnecessary and irrelevant. It is accepted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the alleged offences are purely private and personal between the parties and no issue of public interest or justice is involved. 4. In the result: a) These Crl.M.Cs are allowed; b) C.C.Nos.131 of 2008 and 493 of 2008, in which the respective petitioners are accused and the respective 1st respondents are the defacto complainant/victim, are hereby quashed; c) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C, shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-