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 de facto complainant/third respondent herein. The crime is registered u/Ss. 341 and 324 r/w. 34 I. P. C. The offence under section 341 I. P. C. is compoundable under Section 320(1) Cr. P. C. even without the permission of the Court, whereas, the offence under Section 324 I. P. C. is compoundable only with the permission of the Court under Section 320(2) Cr. P. C. 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 Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the F. I. R. The jurisdictional competence of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to grant such relief in an appropriate case if the interests of justice warrant such a course cannot possibly be doubted. The powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 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 Section 482 Cr. P. C. that the jurisdictional competence cannot be doubted or questioned.

4. But is this a proper case in which such jurisdiction can or ought to be invoked? In every such case, should the parties be compelled to come to this Court from far and wide to seek such relief under Section 482 Cr. P. C.? Do they not have a more efficacious and less expensive remedy ? These are the vital questions.

5. This Court has already held in Sabu George v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT 982): (2007 Cri LJ 1865), adopting the line of reasoning in King Emperor v. Mrs. F. M. Torpey (AIR 1927 Allahabad 375) : (1927 (28) Cri LJ 495) and Kumaraswami Chetty v. Kuppuswami Chetty (1918) 41 Mad. 685 : (1918 (19) Cri LJ 359) that composition of a criminal offence can take place even before the complaint is filed and cognizance is taken by the criminal Court. In paragraph 13 of Sabu George, after adverting to the view that there can be a composition of the offence even prior to a complaint this Court had thus :

"I do completely, concur with the view. That view does appear to me to be most reasonable. If a different view were taken, pending investigation into a compoundable (320(1) Cr. P. C.) offence which is cognizable and non-bailable, the accused will be forced to endure the trauma of arrest and all the paraphernalia of investigation, till a final report is filed in Court, whereupon only he will be able to come to Court and seek composition. If the offence is compoundable under S. 320 (1) and the parties have compounded the offence, the police must be bound to accept the same and drop further action and make report of the same to the Magistrate concerned. If the police do not, it must be possible for the parties to approach the learned Magistrate or this Court under S. 482 Cr. P. C. I therefore agree that composition of an offence under S. 320(1) can be effected even before cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistrate."

(Emphasis supplied)

6. I have no hesitation to agree that from principle and precedent it has to be held that composition is of the offence and not merely the proceedings pending before the