IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3785 of 2008() --------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.50/06 OF MUSEUM PS (CBCID 178/CR/THIRUVANANTHAPURAM/06) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, T.C 16/708, ATTHAM JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. USHA, D/O. SAROJINI, TC 16/1186, “CHOTHI”, KANNETTUMUKKU, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3785 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 ORDER Between the parties to this petition i.e., the petitioner and the 1st respondent, there was another petition pending before this Court – W.P.(c) No.18477/06. That petition has been dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement today. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent. The respondent and the wife were loggerheads. The wife filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate and the same was referred to the police under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime No.50/06 of the Museum Police Station was registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.452 IPC. Later at the request of the wife, investigation in that crime was transferred to the CB CID and the CB CID re-registered the crime as CB CID No.178/CR/Thiruvananthapuram/06. Crl.M.C. No. 3785 of 2008 -: 2 :- Investigation into that crime is pending now. Final report has not been filed. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation could not be completed in the light of the order of stay passed in W.P.(c) No.18477/06. 3. The petitioner/husband has now come before this Court with this petition to apprise this Court of the fact that the disputes between them have been settled amicably. All outstanding disputes have been settled as per Annexure-C decree passed by the Family Court. That decree was passed on the basis of a joint compromise petition filed by the petitioner and the 1st respondent. That joint petition forms part of Annexure-C decree. The terms of the joint compromise petition reveals that the instant case i.e., Crime No.50/06 of the Museum Police Station that is re-registered as CB CID No.178/CR/ Thiruvananthapuram/06 is also settled and compromised. 4. The petitioner has later produced Annexure-D consent letter executed by the 1st respondent. 5. The short prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the light of the settlement of the disputes between the parties and the composition effected by the 1st respondent as evidenced by the joint compromise petition – Crl.M.C. No. 3785 of 2008 -: 3 :- Annexure-C and the consent letter – Annexure-D, all further proceedings in the crime may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287); Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no necessity to continue with the investigation in this crime. Nothing useful is likely to come out of such an investigation in these proceedings. In these circumstances, crime registered and all further proceedings may be quashed, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The respondent/wife has been served. A counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent. Though the 1st respondent was asked to file an affidavit and the learned counsel was requested to take instructions, there is no representation for the 1st respondent. There is no assertion that Annexure-C joint compromise petition and Annexure-D consent letter have not been signed and executed by the 1st respondent. There was a counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in W.P.(c) No.18477/06. To a pointed query put by this Court as to Crl.M.C. No. 3785 of 2008 -: 4 :- whether the alleged compromise is true and genuine, the learned counsel only submits that he has no instructions on that aspect. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor only submits that appropriate orders may be passed in the matter. The investigation stood stayed as per the interim orders in W.P.(c) No.18477/06 and hence the investigation has not been completed, it is submitted. 8. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that the conclusion is safe and sound that the petitioner and the 1st respondent have settled all the outstanding disputes in terms of Annexure-C joint compromise petition and Annexure- D consent letter. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where 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); Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287); Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the crime registered which has now become irrelevant and unnecessary. Crl.M.C. No. 3785 of 2008 -: 5 :- 9. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) Crime No.50/06 of the Museum Police Station which has been re-registered as CB CID No.178/CR/ Thiruvananthapuram/06, against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge