IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3991 of 2008 ---------------------------------- ( CC.171/2008 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA) .................... PETITIONER(S)/ ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. RAJESHKUMAR, KUNURUVILAYIL HOUSE, KUNNAM.P.O, MAVELIKKARA. 2. INDIRA NAIR, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL. RESPONDENT(S)/ DEFACT COMPLAINANT AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GAYATHRI NAIR, KONDOOR SWATHI, PARUMALA.P.O, THIRUVALLA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI, R1. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, ADV. SRI.K.JAGADEESH, ADV. SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3991 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October 2008 O R D E R Petitioners are the husband and mother-in-law of the first respondent herein, that is the de facto complainant. The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation in a crime. That crime in turn was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent/de facto complainant before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. Calender case has been registered. Trial has not commenced. It is at this stage that the petitioners and the first respondent have appeared before this court through their counsel to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and the first respondent/de facto complainant has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners. The first respondent confirms such settlement. She has filed an affidavit to confirm the same. It is submitted that the marital tie already stands dissolved by a decree of the competent court. Crl.M.C.No.3991/08 2 3. I am satisfied that the parties have settled their disputes. I am satisfied that the first respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners though the same is not compoundable. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the first respondent pray, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] can be invoked to bring to premature termination the proceedings against the petitioners. 4. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C.No.171/08 pending before the learned J.F.C.M, Thiruvalla in which the petitioners are the accused and the first respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3991/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.3991/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008