IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4477 of 2008 ------------------------- SC.570/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS, ADHOC-II, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------- SHAHUL, S/O.KUNTHALAM, KANDATHIN KARAYIL HOUSE, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY,MUVATTUPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASHRAF,S/O.AIMOONJ, EDAPLAYIL, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.S.U. NAZAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.BASIL THOMAS THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4477 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 IPC. Cognizance has already taken. Trial has already commenced. At this juncture, the petitioner has come to this Court along with the respondent to apprise this Court of the fact that they have settled their disputes and the 2nd respondent/victim has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. Petitioner makes two submissions. First of all it is contended that, even if the entire allegations were accepted, the offence can only be under Section 324 IPC and not under Section 308 IPC. Secondly it is contended that, the matter having been settled between the parties harmoniously and the dispute being purely private and personal, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287], Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008(3) KLT 769(SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT 417 Standing Counsel] may be Crl.M.C. No. 4477 OF 2008 -:2:- invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner herein. 2. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. The learned Prosecutor confirms that the matter has been settled. The learned Prosecutor further confirms that the dispute is purely personal and private between the parties. He asserts that no issues of public interest or public policy are involved. He further submits that the State has no objection against the acceptance of composition of the offences and the quashing of proceedings. 3. The respondent has entered appearance. He has confirmed the composition by filing an affidavit. Counsel confirms that the matter is settled. I am in these circumstances satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the precedents referred above can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) Prosecution against the petitioner pending as Crl.M.C. No. 4477 OF 2008 -:3:- SC 570/05 before the additional Sessions Judge, Ad hoc II, Ernakulam is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings if any pending against the petitioner and sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C, shall be disposed of in accordance with law. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 4477 OF 2008 -:4:- Crl.M.C. No. 4477 OF 2008 -:5:-