Nadeem Ahammed Vahidhi, Muhammed Nissar and Paul M. Peter vs State of Kerala and John P. Mathew

Justice S.S. Satheesachandran

Petitioners are some of the accused in a pending case numbered as C.C. No. 85 of 2012 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. They stand indicted in the above case for offences punishable u/s 3 read with Section 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act), 1978, on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Palarivattom Police Station. Trial proceeded against one among the accused named in the report has ended in his acquittal and with respect to another accused composition effected with the de facto complainant was recognized by the learned magistrate passing an order of acquittal in favour of that accused u/s 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short the ''Code'', is the submission of the counsel for petitioners. It is further submitted that petitioners have entered into a settlement with the de facto complainant and he is presently not interested in continuing the prosecution against them. A compromise petition signed by the petitioners/accused 1-3 with the de facto complainant (CW1) is also produced with the petition (Annexure D), to invoke the inherent powers of this court to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The de facto complainant (CW1) is also represented by a counsel, who also endorses the submissions as above made by the learned counsel for petitioners. Circumstances canvassed by the counsel as above for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners who are proceeded as accused for an offence covered under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act), 1978, cannot be accepted by this court, to invoke its inherent powers for quashing the proceedings against them. Offence involved in the above act is one affecting moral turpitude and composition of such offence which is not permitted u/s 320 of the Code or any provision of law, will not be conducive to justice, if at all the petitioners have any case that no ground has been made out against them to proceed for the offence imputed it is open to them to set forth that plea before the magistrate for passing appropriate orders on its merits. I find this is not a fit case for exercise of inherent powers of the court as canvassed of. Petition is dismissed.