YESUDAS Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALAMASSERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the correct procedure to be followed by the Investigating Officer when composition of a compoundable offence (with or without permission of the Court S.320(1) or (2)) is reported to him in the course of investigation At that stage what relief can be claimed by the accused and the complainant / victim From which Court can such relief be claimed These questions of day to day relevance before the Criminal Courts arise for consideration before me in this case.

(2.) To the vital facts first. Crime No. 825 of 2007 of Kalamasserry police station is registered against the three petitioners herein on the basis of the F.I. statement lodged by the defacto complainant / third respondent herein. The crime is registered under S.341 and 324 r/w. 34 IPC. The offence under S.341 IPC is compoundable under S.320(1) CrPC even without the permission of the Court, whereas, the offence under S.324 IPC is compoundable only with the permission of the Court under S.320(2) CrPC. The parties petitioners and the third respondent have settled their disputes and the third respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners.

(3.) Not sure of the answers to the questions raised in paragraph 1 above, the petitioners along with the third respondent have come to this Court with a petition under S.482 CrPC to quash the FIR. The jurisdictional competence of this Court under S.482 CrPC to grant such relief in an appropriate case if the interests of justice warrant such a course cannot possibly be doubted. The powers under S.482 CrPC have often been described to be awesome. The same can in an appropriate case be invoked by this Court to do justice even beyond the law. Such is the sweep, width and amplitude of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under S.482 CrPC that the jurisdictional competence cannot be doubted or questioned.