IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 65 of 2009() ----------------------- CRIME NO. 293/2002 OF GURUVAYUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 2 & 5 ---------------------------- 1. SHAKKEEB, S/O.MANGALASSERY KUNHIMUHAMMED, VAZHAPPILLY DESOM, PERAKAM VILLAGE. 2. ASAD, S/O.RAZACK, KOLATHAKKATT, NATTIKA BEACH, NATTIKA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHEKEELA, D/O.M.K.BABU, KURUVATHVEETTIL HOUSE, VELIYAMKODE NORTH, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 65 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 313 I.P.C. Altogether there were five accused persons. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Three of the five co-accused have already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. As the petitioners were not available, the case against them was split up and refiled. 2. At this juncture, the petitioners and the second respondent have come before this Court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have already settled all their outstanding disputes and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. Annex.B is the judgment of acquittal in favour of the co-accused. That judgment also reveals that there has been a settlement/composition. Crl.M.C.No. 65 of 2009 2 3. The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel and has filed an affidavit duly attested by the counsel to confirm that the parties have settled their disputes and the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners have been compounded by the second respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent pray, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction as enabled by the dictum in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution surviving against the petitioners. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.P. No. 111 of 2006, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad against the petitioners, in which the second respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed. Crl.M.C.No. 65 of 2009 3 c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioners and the sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm