VARAMBUMURIYAN ABOOTTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, along with 12 other co-accused, faced indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs. 143, 147, 148 and 452 read with Sec. 149 IPC. All other offences alleged were compoundable offences. All the other accused have already been acquitted. The petitioner as well as respondents 6 to 11 were not available for trial and the case against them was split up. One of the accused was a juvenile and the Juvenile Court has already acquitted him (A13), it is submitted. All the other co-accused, except the petitioner herein and respondents 6 to 11, have already been found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the petitioner and respondents 6 to 11 i. e. , A6 to A8, A10, A11, A15 and A17 has been split up and re-filed.

(2.) THE petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer that the surviving prosecution against him and respondents 6 to 11 may now be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction as enabled by the dictum in madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287); Nikhil Merchant v. C. B. I. (2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)) and manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417) inasmuch as all the four victims in the case i. e. , respondents 2 to 5 herein have settled their disputes and compounded all the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner herein and respondents 6 to 11. Respondents 2 to 5 have entered appearance through counsel. They have filed affidavits to confirm that the disputes have been settled and the offences allegedly committed against them have been compounded.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 pray, the learned Public prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. as enabled by the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 air SCW 2287); Nikhil Merchant v. C. B. I. (2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the crl. M. C. No. 4196 of 2008 -: 3 :-surviving prosecution against the petitioner and respondents 6 to 11. I take note of the nature of the allegations and the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor that the offences alleged are purely private and personal between the parties and no issues of public justice or public interest are directly involved. It is also brought to my notice that there was a counter case and crl. M. C. No. 4963/2008 is filed to quash the proceedings in the said counter case also.