VED PAL KISHAN RAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused 1 and 3 in a prosecution initiated against them, inter alia, under Sections 353 and 294(b) r/w. 34 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against them is that they committed offences against the second respondent/defacto complainant while he was on official duty as an official of the C.I.S.F. The alleged offences had taken place as early as on 31.12.1999. The case was registered as C.C. 2982 of 2001. The petitioners have not personally appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. They have entered appearance through counsel, it is submitted. Warrants of arrest are pending against them.

(2.) The petitioners came to this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against them. What is the reason? The short plea raised is that the petitioners, who are also personnel of the C.I.S.F., have settled their disputes with the second respondent, who is alleged to have settled, compromised and compounded the offences allegedly committed against him. In these circumstances it is prayed that premature termination of the proceedings against the petitioners may be brought about. It is accepted that the offences are not compoundable. But it is contended that the dictum in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) must come to the rescue of the petitioners and save them from the continued trauma of this undeserved prosecution. The petitioners are now employed at Utheranjal and Madurai and it is practically impossible for them to appear before the Court at Ernakulam.

(3.) The offence under Section 353 I.P.C. is a serious offence and there can be no composition of the said offence. That offence cannot be reckoned merely as an offence against the second respondent. The second respondent may be legally entitled to compound the other compoundable offences committed personally against him. But so far as Section 353 I.P.C. is concerned, it may not be possible to read down the significance of the offence as one affecting the second respondent alone.