High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2008-10-28Crl.M.C. No. 3854 of 2008 dismissed

SAMEER s/o MOIDHU v. CHATHU s/o KURUMBAN and STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 3854 of 2008

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
Judgment Date: 2008-10-28
Court Decision / Holding: The court dismissed Crl.M.C. No. 3854 of 2008, holding that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot and should not be invoked to terminate the prosecution in this instance. The petitioner is directed to stand trial.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.C. No. 3854 of 2008 dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SAMEER s/o MOIDHU

Respondents

CHATHU s/o KURUMBAN
STATE OF KERALA represented by PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI. SUDHEESH.A.
• SRI. GIKKU JACOB

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court decision, rendered by Justice R. Basant, concerns Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3854 of 2008 arising from a NDPS Court prosecution for offences under sections 457 and 436 read with 149 IPC. The incident involved the accused, along with several others, allegedly trespassing into a closed restaurant, vandalizing property, and causing extensive loss amid political tension. Six co-accused were tried; three were acquitted (Annexure II). The petitioner and the first respondent claim they have settled their dispute; the defacto complainant’s shop suffered damage and he has accepted compensation. He now does not wish to pursue the case further. The petitioner seeks premature termination of the prosecution under the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., relying on Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab and Nikhil Merchant v. CBI. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, opposes the application, arguing that the offences are non-compoundable and that the public interest, violence with political motive, and public damage cannot be trumped by private settlement. After weighing the circumstances, the Court held that this is not a private dispute warranting 482 jurisdiction and that the petitioner must stand trial. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed and a copy of the order is to be served on counsel.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 457 IPCSection 436 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Public policy considerations in relation to compounding of non-compoundable offences; private settlement cannot override public order and criminal law in cases involving political motive.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that the dispute has been settled with the defacto complainant, who has received compensation, and urges the Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate the proceedings prematurely in light of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab and Nikhil Merchant v. CBI. They emphasize practical hardships, with the petitioner abroad and not always available for date-specific postings; they argue that the case involves a private settlement that should be considered to prevent undue harassment, and stress that the offences, though non-compoundable, may be subject to cautionary and exceptional disposal in the interest of justice given the settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-complainant opposes quashing, noting that the offences are non-compoundable and the incident involved open violence with political overtones, affecting public order. The State Prosecutor argues that the gravity of the offences, the extensive damage, and public impact require the prosecution to proceed, and a private settlement cannot be allowed to defeat the legitimate interests of the public and the rule of law. Citing prior decisions (Babeesh v. S.I. of Police; Santhosh v. State of Kerala), the prosecutor warns against the misuse of settlement to undermine public justice and public interest, and cautions against dilution of the seriousness of such offences.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	2008 (3) KLT 19	Distinguished	Court states that the 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction cannot be invoked in this case as per the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot.
Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I	2008 (30) KLT 769	Distinguished	Same reasoning as Madan Mohan Abbot; 482 jurisdiction not applicable here.
Babeesh @ Babin Kumar v. S.I. of Police	2008(3) KHC 713	Mentioned Only	Cited by the prosecution; the judgment’s own ruling relies on caution in applying settlements to non-compoundable offences, but it is not expressly applied.
Santhosh v. State of Kerala	2008 (3) KLT 240	Mentioned Only	Cited by the prosecution; not expressly followed or distinguished in the present decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against SAMEER s/o MOIDHU v. CHATHU s/o KURUMBAN and STATE OF KERALA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT** **TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930** **Crl.MC.No. 3854 of 2008()** **-----------------------------------** ## **SC. 626/07 OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS CURT (NDPS COURT) VADAKARA.** **..........** ## **PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED;** **-----------------------** **SAMEER, S/O.MOIDHU, AGED 30 YEARS, PULIYARATH HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR AMSAM DESAM, VADAKARA TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL** ## **RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:** **---------------------------** **1. CHATHU, S/O.KURUMBAN, AGED 54 YEARS, TRADER, POOKKOTTUMMAL HOUSE, THIRULLUR, VADAKARA TALUK.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **ADV. SRI.SUDHEESH.A. FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **R. BASANT, J.** ----------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of October, 2008 ## **O R D E R** Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 457 and 436 read with Section 149 IPC. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner along with five others had indulged in culpable offences after trespassing into a restaurant which remained closed. After breaking upon the said restaurant by sheer acts of gross violence, extensive damage was allegedly caused to the shop. The incident, it is alleged, occurred on account of prior political animosity. Six named persons along with about 30 others had allegedly indulged in the culpable offences taking law into their own hands. Three of the co-accused faced trial. They have been found not guilty and acquitted as per Annexure II judgment. 2. The petitioner and the first respondent have come to this Court at this juncture to apprise this Court of the fact that they have settled the dispute between them. The defacto complainant/1[st] respondent whose shop was trespassed into and mischief committed with fire has settled his disputes with the petitioner after receiving sufficient compensation. In these Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 -:2:- circumstances the 1[st] respondent does not want to further prosecute the case against the petitioner. They pray that the settlement and composition may be accepted and proceedings may be brought to premature termination as enabled by the dictum in _**Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab**_ [2008 (3) KLT 19] and _**Nikhil Merchant V. C.B.I**_ [ 2008 (30 KLT 769 (Standing Counsel)]. 3. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. Learned Prosecutor submits that the offences are not compoundable and notwithstanding the alleged composition of the offences by the defacto complainant/victim, the State is unable to agree that the prosecution can be brought to premature termination. Extensive loss have been caused to the restaurant frequented by the members of the public. It was an open act of violation of law with political motive which had allegedly triggered the incident and the learned Public Prosecutor submits that in a democratic country wedded to rule of law, composition of non-compoundable offences committed on the basis of political animosity and ill will deserves to Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 -:3:- be frouned upon. Learned Public Prosecutor points out that this Court has already considered and expressed that caution and reservation which must be exercised before the application for composition of a non-compoundable offence is accepted by the Court. The decisions in _**Babeesh @ Babin Kumar v. S.I. of Police**_ [2008(3) KHC 713] and _**Santhosh v. State of Kerala**_ [2008 (3) KLT 240] are referred to by the learned Prosecutor. 4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. I have taken note of the nature of the allegations and the nature of the damage caused. I take note of the fact that political animosity has prompted and provoked the violence in the instant case. I am unable to reckon the crime committed in the instant case as one which is private and personal between the contestants. I agree with the learned Prosecutor that a court cannot lose sight of the impact which the grossly culpable acts, created on the public mind. I am satisfied that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in _**Madan Mohan Abbot**_ and _**Nikhil**_ Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 -:4:- _**Merchant**_ (supra) can or ought to be invoked. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to stand trial before the Court concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is employed abroad and if unnecessary insistences were made on the personal presence of the petitioner on all dates of postings, that would cause great hardship and loss to him. Petitioner is already on bail, it is submitted. I find no reason why the learned Sessions Judge need insist on the personal presence of the petitioner ritualistically, unless his presence is necessary for making further progress in the trial. 6. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. 7. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. ## **R. BASANT, JUDGE** ttb Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 -:5:- Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 -:6:- Crl.M.C. No. 3854 OF 2008 -:7:-