High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
SUDIN v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 1105 of 2007  RD-KL 7186 (4 April 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl MC No. 1105 of 2007()
2. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. SREEDHARAN,
1. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.R.MANOJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.CRL.M.C.NO. 1105 OF 2007
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2007
ORDERThe petitioners face indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under Secs.468 and 471 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Investigation commenced on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant which was forwarded to the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The proceedings have been pending from 2002. The petitioners have already appeared before the learned Magistrate. They have now come to this Court after about half a decade with the prayer that the prosecution initiated against them may be quashed.
2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has been settled between the parties and all civil disputes have already been withdrawn CRL.M.C.NO. 1105 OF 2007 -: 2 :- or not prosecuted. In these circumstances, a lenient view may be taken and invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction, proceedings initiated may be quashed, it is urged.
3. The offence is not compoundable and ordinarily and normally composition of a non-compoundable offence by the parties against the provisions of law cannot be a sufficient and valid justification to invoke the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Of course, my attention has been drawn to the decision in B.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386). That decision is authority for the proposition that in exceptional cases in the interests of justice powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked and that the stipulations of Sec.320 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be reckoned as a fetter on the exercise of such powers.
4. But it has often been repeated that the decision in B.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) cannot be reckoned as sufficient to obliterate the distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences. When a non- compoundable offence is compounded, the legal effect is only that the witnesses are turning hostile to the prosecution. Such hostility by itself cannot, according to me, be reckoned as sufficient to justify the invocation of the powers under Sec.482 of CRL.M.C.NO. 1105 OF 2007 -: 3 :- the Cr.P.C.
5. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the prayer in this Crl.M.C. cannot be accepted. However, I take note of the plight of the petitioners. Proceedings have been pending from 2002. I need only direct the learned Magistrate to ensure that the case is disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Needless to say, it will be open to the parties to report composition of compoundable offences and seek appropriate relief so that the trial in respect of such offences need not continue.
6. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations. Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.