IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4783 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN LP 32/2008 IN CC.1321/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- SHAJAHAN, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PAINEERKONAM, PARAKKAD, KEEZHUVILAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SABEENA BEEVI, D/O.NABEESA BEEVI, E.K.HOUSE, KURAKKODU, THONNAKKAL, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE (CW1). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4783 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The de facto complainant is the 1st respondent, the wife of the petitioner. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2005 as can be ascertained from the number assigned to the case, i.e.C.C.No.1321/2005. The case has later been transferred to the list of long pending cases. At this juncture, the petitioner and the second respondent have come before this court through their counsel to apprise this court of the fact that the disputes between them have been settled. The matrimonial tie has been severed. The second respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent pray, 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 enabled by the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Crl.M.C.No.4783/08 2 Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner which has now become irrelevant and unnecessary. 3. An affidavit has been filed by the second respondent to confirm that she has settled the disputes and compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. 4. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) Prosecution against the petitioner under Section 498A I.P.C pending before the learned J.F.C.M-I Attingal as L.P.No.32/08 (C.C.No.1321/05) in which the second respondent herein is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. c) The learned Magistrate shall take necessary steps to record the fact that the prosecution has been quashed in the relevant records. d) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4783/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4783/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008