IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4162 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.1053/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA .................... PETITIONER(S): AI TO A4 :- -------------------------- 1. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 38, (A1) S/O BHAVANANDAN, THENGUMALA VEEDU, NEAR ELAMBA BRIDGE, ELAMBA DESOM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE, 2. BHAVANANDAN, AGE 66 (A2), S/O. GOVINDAN,THENGUMALA VEEDU, NEAR ELAMBA BRIDGE, ELAMBA DESOM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE. 3. GOMATHI, AGE 61 (A3), D/O. KOCHAPPI. THENGUMALA VEEDU, NEAR ELAMBA BRIDGE, ELAMBA DESOM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE. 4. SINI, AGE 29 (A4), D/O. MARIYAMMA, NEENDOOR KOCHU PADIKKAL VEEDU, NEENDOOR DESOM, HARIPPAD VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAING:- -------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LEJU, AGE 32, (CWI), D/O. JENANAI, LEJU SADANAM, NJAKKADU DESOM, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4162 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November 2008 O R D E R Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 498A read with 34 I.P.C. The second respondent herein is the de facto complainant. She is the wife of the first petitioner. The other petitioners are the relatives of the first petitioner. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Petitioners along with the second respondent have now come before this court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. Though the offences are not compoundable, it is prayed that the composition may be accepted and premature termination of the prosecution may be directed invoking 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]. 2. Second respondent has entered appearance through counsel. Statement has been filed by the second respondent duly attested by the learned counsel for the second respondent. Crl.M.C.No.4162/08 2 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no objection against the quashing of proceedings. 4. I am satisfied that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes. I am further satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as explained in the dictum in B.S.Joshi (Supra) can and ought to be invoked and proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the second respondent brought to premature termination. 5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C No.1053/07 pending before the learned J.F.C.M, Varkala against the petitioners herein wherein the second 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.4162/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4162/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008