IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 5052 of 2008() ------------------------- CR.NO. 176/07 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION CC.1860/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THANKAMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.ARVINDAN P.V.,PAITHURUTHIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. P.A.ANIL AGED34 YEARS, S/O. P.V.ARVINDAN PAITHURUTHIL HOUSE, H.NO.35/357,MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM P.O. ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MEREENA JOSEPH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MRS.T.N.SEENA, D/O.NARAYANAN, THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ADUVASSERY. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB SMT.K.M.BEENA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 5052 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners are the mother-in-law and husband respectively of the second respondent, who is the defacto complainant in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 498A I.P.C. All other offences alleged are compoundable offences. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Trial has not commenced. 2. At this juncture, the petitioners and the second respondent have come before this Court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled all their outstanding disputes and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. 3. The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel and has filed an affidavit duly attested by the counsel to Crl.M.C.No. 5052 of 2008 2 confirm that the parties have settled their disputes and the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners have been compounded. The spouses have decided to put an end to their matrimonial relationship and an application under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act has also been filed before the Family Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent pray, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction as enabled by the dictum in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution surviving against the petitioners. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.C. No. 1860 of 2008, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam against the petitioners, in which the second respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed. Crl.M.C.No. 5052 of 2008 3 c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioners and the sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm