IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 206 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO.146/2008 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5; ---------------------------------- 1. RAJEESH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUTHUKATTIL HOUSE, NEDUVA POST, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VELAYUDHAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, -DO-, -DO-. 2. VELAYUDHAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 63 YEARS, -DO-, -DO-. 3. KAMALAM, W/O.VELAYUDHAN, -DO-, -DO-. 4. PRAMOD LAL, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, -DO-, -DO-. 5. BIJU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, -DO-, -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOTTAKKAL. 2. REMYA, D/O.SATHYANATHAN, ULLERI HOUSE, THOKKANPARA, KOTTAKKAL POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN FOR R2 SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.206 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioners as accused 1 to 5 face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Section 498 A I.P.C. They are the husband, father in law, mother in law and brothers in law respectively of the 2nd respondent, the defacto complainant. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed. 2. During the pendency of the investigation by the Kottakkal Police, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent have now settled their disputes before the Lok Adalat as per Annexure-A2. Accordingly all outstanding disputes have been settled and it has been agreed that a divorce by mutual consent shall be applied for by the spouses. A decree for divorce has already been granted also, it is submitted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the 2nd respondent/complainant pray; the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where all further proceedings in Crl.M.C. No.206 of 2009 2 pursuance of Crime No.146 of 2008 of Kottakkal Police Station can safely be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386]. In the absence of opposition from the learned Public Prosecutor, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has appeared before this Court and confirms such composition/settlement in pursuance of Annexure-A2. 4. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) All further proceedings in pursuance of Crime No.146 of 2008 of Kottakkal Police Station against the petitioners is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-