IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3171 of 2008() ------------------------- LP NO.42/04 OF THE JFCM COURT-III, PUNALUR. (C.C.NO.1086/02) – CRIME NO.171/02 OF THE KUNNICODE POLICE STATION. PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- SHAJAHAN, S/O.ABDUL AZIZ, PARAKUNNUL VEETTIL, KUNNICODE MURIYIL, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNICODE POLICE STATION (CRIME NO. 171 OF 2002) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. POOKOYA THANGAL, S/O.S.M.THANGAL, MANIYAMOOR VEETTIL, CHAKKUVARACKAL VEETTILL, CHAKKUVARACKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3171 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.420 and 468 IPC. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The crime, in turn, was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner herein which was forwarded to the police by the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. The matter is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Punalur. The case has been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases. 2. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are brothers-in- law. The allegations relate to the transaction of a vehicle. It Crl.M.C. No. 3171 of 2008 -: 2 :- is alleged that the accused had cheated the de facto complainant and had misutilised the vehicle which was entrusted to him. Forgery was allegedly committed to transfer the vehicle, it is further alleged. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the brothers- in-law have settled their disputes. The 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit to confirm that the disputes have been settled and he has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. He has appeared through counsel to confirm that the disputes have been settled and the offences have been compounded. 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, confirms that the parties have settled their disputes. It is further submitted that the State has no objection against the quashing of proceedings in view of the composition of the offences by the 2nd respondent. 5. The offence under Sec.468 IPC is not compoundable. I am satisfied from the totality of the circumstances that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and that the 2nd respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. I am, in these circumstances, Crl.M.C. No. 3171 of 2008 -: 3 :- satisfied that if legally possible and permissible, the composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination. 6. The learned counsel for the contestants, in this context, rely on the decision in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287). The learned counsel submits that the dispute is one which is purely personal and private in nature. No public policy is involved. Ground realities may be taken into account. In the interests of optimum use of the judicial time also, the proceedings may be quashed as no useful purpose is likely to come out from such a prosecution. 7. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked as enabled by the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot notwithstanding the fact that one of the offences alleged is not compoundable. 8. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) L.P.No.42/04 (C.C.No.1086/02) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Punalur, against the petitioner in which the 2nd respondent is the de facto Crl.M.C. No. 3171 of 2008 -: 4 :- complainant is hereby quashed. (c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Sec.446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioner and the sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge