IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4668 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.927/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O. SAHMSUDDEEN, AGED 33 YEARS, RAFI MANZIL, KARAKKAMANDAPAM, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. SHAMNA, D/O RAMLA BEEVI, VINSOL HOUSE, TC 55/708, NEERAMANKARA, MANUKULADICHAMANGALAM, NEMOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY P.P. SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU. ADV. SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4668 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.498A IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. That crime, in turn, was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent before the police and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. Cognizance has been taken. Trial has not commenced. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent. Though there were other accused also shown in the FIR/ complaint, they have been deleted from the array of accused. At this juncture, the petitioner and the 1st respondent have come before this Court through their counsel to apprise this Crl.M.C. No. 4668 of 2008 -: 2 :- Court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and they have resumed harmonious cohabitation. The 1st respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner herein. An affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent duly attested by the counsel to confirm that the disputes have been settled and the 1st respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor concedes that the composition can be accepted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the 1st respondent pray, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that in view of the settlement and composition, the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in B.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution pending against the petitioner which has now become unnecessary and irrelevant. 5. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) C.C.No.927/07 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thiruvananthapuram, in which Crl.M.C. No. 4668 of 2008 -: 3 :- the petitioner is the accused and the 1st respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. (c) Needless to say, the proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties under Sec.446 Cr.P.C. shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/