IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 96 of 2009() ------------------------------- CC. 1211/2008 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHENGANNUR. .... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ----------------------- ANSARI T.A., S/O. UMMERKUTTY, AGED 34 YEARS, THOUFIK MANZIL, KARAKKADU MURI, MULAKKUZHA P.O., MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): DE JURE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHEEBA SHAHUL, D/O.LAILA SHAHUL AGED 29 YEARS, PUTHENVILAYIL VEEDU, MANAGARAM MURI, PANDALAM P.O., PANDALAM VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN FOR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.96 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498 A I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against him is that he was guilty of matrimonial cruelty of the culpability variety against his wife, the 2nd respondent herein. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. 2. Trial has not started. The petitioner accused and the 2nd respondent/complainant have appeared before this Court through counsel to confirm that the matrimonial disputes have been settled and the 2nd respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner herein. The spouses have resumed harmonious cohabitation and in these circumstances it is submitted that the prosecution has lost all its relevance and meaning. It is prayed that 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] may be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner. Crl.M.C. No.96 of 2009 2 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel and an affidavit has been filed by her duly attested to confirm such settlement/composition. 4. I am satisfied that the prayer in this Crl.M.C can be accepted and the irrelevant and unnecessary prosecution can be brought to premature termination. 5. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) C.C.No.1211 of 2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chengannur against the petitioner, in which the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed; iii) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C, shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-