IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 145 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO. 553/2007 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION CC.595/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- KUNHAMMED P.K., S/O.ABDUL RAHUMAN, KAYYAMKOODAL, PUTHIGE, PUTHIGH GRAMAM. BY ADV. SMT.SOUMINI JAMES RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. ASHARAF.A., S/O.ABDUL REHUMAN, PERIMBALA, KASARAGOD. 2. NAHEEMUDIN, S/O.IBRAHIM, THALAMKARA, KASARAGOD. 3. ABDUL REEFEK, S/O.ADULLA, CHENGALA, KASARAGOD. 4. RAJU, S/O.SWAMINATHAN, KASARAGOD. 5. AHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.ABDULLA, KASARAGOD. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON FOR R1 TO R5 R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 145 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner, along with two others, faced indictment for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 323 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The petitioner was not available for trial. The co-accused (A2 and A3) faced trial. They were found not guilty and acquitted as per Annex.2 order in C.C.29 of 2008. As the petitioner was not available, the case against the petitioner has been split up and refiled. Trial against the petitioner has not commenced yet. 2. At this stage the petitioner has come to this Court along with respondents 1 to 5 to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner have been compounded by respondents 1 to 5. Counsel confirms such composition/ settlement. A joint application for composition duly signed by the rival contestants and counter signed by their counsel has also Crl.M.C.No. 145 of 2009 2 been filed. Respondents 1 to 3 and 5th respondent are the victims. The 4th respondent, I find, is only an eye witness. The submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for R1 to R5 satisfy me that the matter has been settled between the parties and the alleged offences have been compounded by R1 to R5. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who confirms that all outstanding disputes have been settled between the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 1 to 5 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. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. Crl.M.C.No. 145 of 2009 3 b) C.C. 595 of 2008 pending before the C.J.M., Kasargode in which respondents 1 to 3 and 5 are the victims, is hereby quashed. c) 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