IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 4432 of 2008() 1. SULFIKAR, AGED 35 YEARS, Petitioner 2. SIYAB, AGED 28 YEARS, Vs 1. N.P.HABEBA, D/O.HAMSAKOYA, Respondent 2. THAHIRA, W/O. HAMSAKOYA, 3. MAIMOONA, D/O.HAMSAKOYA, THAHIRA MANZIL, 4. RUKSANA, D/O.MAIMOONA, THAHIRA MANZIL, 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANJAY For Respondent :SRI.P.K.NIJOY The Hon'ble MR. Justice [ENTITY] Dated :25/11/2008 O R D E R [ENTITY], J [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 ORDER
Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under [SECTION] [ACT] All other offences are compoundable offences. Respondents 1 to 4 are the wife of the 1st petitioner, her sisters and a niece of hers. 1st petitioner had allegedly contracted one more marriage while his marriage with the 2nd respondent was in existence. The 2nd petitioner is a friend of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners/accused, who are friends, had allegedly trespassed into the residential building occupied by and in the possession of respondents 1 to 4 and had allegedly committed the alleged offences.
2. The petitioners and respondents 1 to 4 are now before court through their counsel to confirm that the disputes between them have been settled. Respondents 1 to 4 have compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. The matrimonial dispute has been settled harmoniously. The spouses are happily residing together, it is submitted. Respondents 1 to 4 have appeared through counsel and they along with the petitioners have filed a joint application for composition duly countersigned by their respective counsel.
3. Offence under [SECTION] [ACT] is not compoundable. But the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents 1 to 4 pray, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under [SECTION] [ACT] as enabled by the dictum in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]] and [PRECEDENT]] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioners, which has now turn out to be unnecessary and irrelevant.
4. In the result:
a) This [CASE NUMBER] is allowed; b) [CASE NUMBER] pending before the Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class-V, Kozhikode, in which respondents 1 to 4 are the alleged victims, is hereby quashed;
c) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties, shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
([ENTITY], JUDGE) rtr/-