IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 466 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO.50/07 OF VADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION PETITIONER --------------- 1. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O LATE MAYU, 33 YEARS, “KRISHNAKRIPA”, MANAPPADAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT PUTHURUTHY DESOM, WADAKKANCHERY 2. AMMU, W/O LATE MAYU, 68 YEARS, “KRISHNAKRIPA”, MANAPPADAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. CHINTHAMANI, D/O MAYU “KRISHNAKRIPA”, MANAPPADAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. RAJAMANI, D/O LATE MAYU “KRISHNAKRIPA”, MANAPPADAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. PARVATHY, D/O LATE MAYU “KRISHNAKRIPA”, MANAPPADAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. KARTHIAYANI, D/O LATE MAYU “KRISHNAKRIPA”, MANAPPADAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. NISHA, D/O RAJAMANI, 23 YEARS, “KRISHNAKRIPA”, MANAPPADAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. JITHA.G., D/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 28 YEARS, ERAKULAM HOUSE, KAZHANI AMSOM, KAVASSERY VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA/SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.RAHUL SHENOY FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.466 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Calender case has been registered. Trial has not commenced. Altogether there are seven accused persons. Petitioners are the accused. Petitioners are allegedly guilty of matrimonial cruelty against the 1st respondent herein. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and petitioners 2 to 7 are relatives of the 1st petitioner. 2. At this juncture, the petitioners/accused and the 1st respondent/ de facto complainant have come before this court to apprise the court of the fact that the disputes between them have been settled amicably and the 1st respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed against her by the petitioners. An affidavit to that effect has been filed by the 1st respondent. In the light of the settlement/composition, it is totally unnecessary to continue the irrelevant, unnecessary and superfluous prosecution against the petitioners. Crl.M.C.No. 466/09 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the 1st 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 Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the surviving prosecution against the petitioners. 4. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C No.214/07 pending before the learned J.F.C.M, Alathur in which the petitioners are the accused and the 1st 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 petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No. 466/09 3 Crl.M.C.No. 466/09 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008