SUDIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 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 initiatedagainst them may be quashed.

(2.) What isthe reason? The learnedcounsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has been settled between the parties and all civil disputes have already been withdrawn or not prosecuted.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 partiesagainsttheprovisionsoflaw cannotbea 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 inB.S. Joshy v. Stateof Haryana(AIR 2003 SC 1386). That decision is authorityfor 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.