Kerala High Court
Rajesh @ Arun vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2008
Author: R.Basant
Bench: R.Basant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2313 of 2008()
1. RAJESH @ ARUN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/06/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2313 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the 5th accused in a prosecution for offences, inter alia, under Section 326 r/w 149 I.P.C. Altogether there were 6 accused persons. All the other accused except accused 1 and 5 stood trial. They were found not guilty and acquitted.
2. No witnesses were examined in the said case. The acquittal of accused 2, 3, 4 and 6 has now become final without challenge.
3. The crux of the allegations against all the accused persons is that they were members of an unlawful assembly of persons and that they in prosecution of their common object had allegedly attacked CW1 and caused grievous injury to him. There is also a further allegation that CW2, who had witnessed the occurrence, was also assaulted by the accused persons. Thus Cws 1 and 2 are the private individuals aggrieved by the offence in question.
4. Those injured persons have now been brought on the array of accused as additional respondents 2 and 3. They have submitted before the Court, in affidavits filed by them as also in Crl.M.C. No.2313 of 2008 2 the joint statement filed by them along with the petitioner/the 5th accused, that they have settled all their disputes with the petitioner/the 5th accused and that they do not want proceedings against the 5th accused to continue. They having compounded the offences, it is prayed that the prosecution against the petitioner herein may be quashed.
5. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through counsel and the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 confirm that the matter has been settled by the parties and that respondents 2 and 3 have no surviving grievance whatsoever against the petitioner herein. I am satisfied that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and that respondents 2 and 3 have compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. If legally permissible and possible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed.
6. But the offence under Section 326 I.P.C is not compoundable. The counsel, in these circumstances, rely on the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287]. They contend that the dispute is purely private and personal between the victims and the petitioner. No public Crl.M.C. No.2313 of 2008 3 policy or public interest is involved. The additional respondents having compounded the offences, there is no meaning in the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner. A commonsense approach has to be made as demanded in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab. Without the unnecessary technicalities of law, the proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be brought to termination invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, submit counsel.
7. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied, that this is an eminently fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, can be invoked to bring to premature termination the proceedings against the petitioner herein.
8. In the result:
i) This Crl.M.C is allowed;
ii) C.C.No.10 of 2007 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class-I, Nedumangad in so far as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed.
Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE) Crl.M.C. No.2313 of 2008 4 rtr/-
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2313 of 2008
------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 5th accused in a prosecution for offences, inter alia, under Section 324 and 326 r/w 149 I.P.C. The petitioner was not available for trial. The available co-accused have already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. The case against accused 1 and 5 have been split up.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to quashing of all proceedings against him invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The counsel relies on the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287]. He asserts that the injured/victim has willingly and Crl.M.C. No.2313 of 2008 5 voluntarily settled the disputes with him. The injured/victim has not been arrayed as respondent. The counsel undertakes to take necessary steps to array the victim who has suffered injury as an additional respondent in this case. He also undertakes to ensure the appearance of the defacto complainant/victim before this Court through counsel and to get an affidavit/joint statement filed by such defacto complainant to confirm that the matter has been settled. Take all necessary steps in 2 days.
3. Call on 24.06.08.
4. Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor shall also take instructions as to whether the Stage has any objection in premature termination of the proceedings by invoking the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-