IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2928 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.677/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------ 1. JAISON THOMAS, AGED 33, S/O.THOMAS, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE OPPANAKARA STREET COIMBATORE. 2. BIJU.C.A., AGED 37, S/O.ANTONY, CHENGINIMATTOM HOUSE, CHALAKUDY PO., BY ADV. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO SRI.M.N.MANOJ SRI.A.G.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.I. OF POLICE , CHALAKUDY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. PAULSON, AGED 58, S/O.PAULOSE, MENACHERY HOUSE, NEAR ST.MARY'S CHURCH PO.CHALAKUDY, TRICHUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2928 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioners, the husband and brother in law face indictment in a pending prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 452 r/w 34 I.P.C. Some of the offences alleged are not compoundable. The 1st petitioner's father in law is the defacto complainant. He has been arrayed as the 2nd respondent in the case. The 1st petitioner and his wife had a strained relationship. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner and his brother in law had trespassed into the house of the 2nd respondent and had committed culpable acts. 2. The petitioners along with the 2nd respondent have come before this Court now to apprise this Court of the fact that the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties and the 2nd respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. The spouses have settled their disputes. They have decided to put an end to the matrimonial tie. The needful has already been done. The matter has been settled and the 2nd respondent having compounded the offences Crl.M.C. No.2928 of 2008 2 allegedly committed by the petitioners notwithstanding the fact that some of the offences alleged are not compoundable, the prosecution may be brought to premature termination by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287] and B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386]. This is the short plea of the petitioners. 3. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. Annexure-D affidavit duly attested by a notary has been produced to confirm that there has been such a bona fide and genuine settlement. 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that the matter is settled completely and that the State, in these circumstances, has no objection against the premature termination of proceedings by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the decisions in the two decisions referred above. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that this is an eminently fit case where such premature termination can be brought about. Crl.M.C. No.2928 of 2008 3 5. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) The prosecution pending against the petitioners as C.C.No.677 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakkudy is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-