IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3420 of 2006() ------------------------- LPC.118/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 --------------------------- T.S.JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.T.C.SREEDHARAN, KOTTY, P.O.PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MINI, D/O.MUKUNDAN.V.V., PAYYANNUR VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3420 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner along with another faced indictment for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 366 I.P.C. The 2nd accused allegedly had abducted the victim woman and she was allegedly raped by the petitioner herein. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. The petitioner was not available for trial. The 2nd accused who was available for trial was trued, found not guilty and acquitted. In such trial the victim had stated unambiguously that the petitioner has not committed any offence against her. 2. At this juncture the petitioner came to this Court with a prayer to quash the prosecution against him inasmuch as the co-accused had already been found not guilty and acquitted. 3. But in the course of the proceedings, the defacto commplainant/victim who was an adult woman on the date of the alleged offence has also come before this Court to confirm that she has no grievance against the petitioner and that she has willingly and voluntarily settled/compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. Crl.M.C. No.3420 of 2006 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the victim/PW1 pray; the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 (3) KLT 19], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769 (SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution pending against the petitioner. 5. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; b) L.P.C.118 of 2002, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Payyannur in which the petitioner is the 1st accused and the deponent/PW1 is the victim, is hereby quashed; c) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C, shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-