IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4732 of 2008 --------------------------------- CC.631/2007 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SHIJU, 27 YEARS, S/O. SHRI. PAPPACHAN, PERUNILATH HOUSE, PO.SOORANAD, KOLLAM-690 522. BY ADV. SMT.P.SHYNI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE ORF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. 2. JAYATHILAKAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT “KARTHIKA”, FRANKLIN GARDEN, HOUSE NO.M/1, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB, R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.C.SHIJIMOL. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4732 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment as the first accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 380 I.P.C. Altogether there were two accused persons. The petitioner is the son and the second accused is his father. 2. The crux of the allegations raised is that the petitioner stole cheque leaves from his employer. One was encahsed. The other was attempted to be encashed through his father, the second accused. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed. The petitioner was not available for trial. The co-accused, his father, faced trial. The case against him has ended in acquittal. The case against the petitioner was refiled as C.C.631 of 2007. Trial in that case is not commenced yet. 2. At this juncture the petitioner/A1 and the defacto complainant have appeared before this court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and the Crl.M.C.No. 4732 of 2008 2 defacto complainant has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. 3. The dispute is one which is purely private and personal between the parties. There is no issue of any public justice or public interest involved. It is in these circumstances prayed that the composition may be accepted and the proceedings quashed. 4. The respondent/victim has entered appearance through counsel. He had filed an affidavit to confirm the settlement/ composition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent pray, the learned Prosecutor, after taking instructions, 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. Crl.M.C.No. 4732 of 2008 3 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.C 631 of 2007 pending before the J.F.M.C., Paravur in which the petitioner is the first accused and the respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm