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. 4803 of 2008(A) -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 59/2003 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION) ............ PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- SHAJAHAN, S/O.ISMAIL, PANDARAKULAMBIL, PAZHAMBALACODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL.R2. JESINA, D/O. ABDUL KHADER, THIRUVILAMALA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. *IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DT. 17/12/08 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 7191/08. **ADDL.R3. NAZAR, S/O. ISMAIL, PANDARAKULAMBIL, PAZHAMBALACODE. **IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DT. 21/01/2009 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 421/2009. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4803 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner as also the 3rd additional respondent along with two others face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 498A I.P.C. The petitioner and the addl.3rd respondent were not available for trial. Trial proceeded against accused 2 and 3. They were found not guilty and acquitted as per Annexure B judgment dated 12/2/2008 in C.C.No.850/04. That prosecution was initiated on the basis of the grievance of addl.2nd respondent herein who was the wife of the petitioner herein. Accused 2 to 4 were relatives of the 1st accused. Annexure B judgment was rendered on the basis of the statement made by the addl.2nd respondent that she has settled all the outstanding disputes with the accused and has compounded the offences. But as accused 1 and 4 were not available for trial, the case against the petitioner herein and the addl.3rd respondent (that is accused 1 and 4) was split up and refiled. That prosecution is now pending as C.C.No.26/08 before the learned J.F.C.M, Alathur. Crl.M.C.No. 4803/08 2 2. At this juncture, the petitioner has come to this court with the prayer that the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution surviving against him and the addl.3rd respondent (4th accused) may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386], Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287], Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008(3) KLT 769(SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT 417 SC]. 3. The petitioner had not initially arrayed the addl.2nd respondent as a party; but she has subsequently been brought on the array of respondents. Though she has been served, she has not entered appearance. Usually, this court insists that when there is a composition, both parties must appear before this court and should not wait for issue of notice to them from this court. But it is represented that the facts of this case are peculiar. The de facto complainant/addl.2nd respondent has already stated before the court in the course of trial in C.C.No.850/04 that she has settled all outstanding disputes Crl.M.C.No. 4803/08 3 between the parties. She has specifically stated so on oath before the court and Annexure C is the copy of her deposition. It was represented to court that it would cause unnecessary difficulties and harassment to the addl.2nd respondent, if she were to return from her present matrimonial home to tender evidence or to take part in this proceedings. It was hence that notice was issued to the addl.second respondent. She has been served; but she has not chosen to appear before court. Her silence in the light of Annexure C confirms settlement/composition, reports the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, confirms that the disputes have been settled and the addl.second respondent has no surviving grievance at all. She has compounded the offences allegedly committed by all the accused including the petitioner herein and the addl.3rd respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as Crl.M.C.No. 4803/08 4 enabled by the dictum in the cases referred above can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioner and the addl.3rd respondent. 6. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C No.26/08 pending before the learned J.F.C.M, Alathur in which the petitioner herein and the addl.3rd respondent are the accused and the second respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioner and the addl.3rd respondent and their sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No. 4803/08 5 Crl.M.C.No. 4803/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008