IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4639 of 2008 --------------------------------- CC.NO.332/2007 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- MATHEW, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. KATTADI KOCHAPPAN, AZHAKAM DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, ADV. SMT.P.A.ANITHA. RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. MARY, W/O. KATTADI MATHEW, C/O. THEKKAN DEVASSY, P.O. PERAMBRA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR, R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.R.REENA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4639 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. The second respondent, his wife, is the de facto complainant. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The trial in the case has not started yet. 2. At this stage, the petitioner, along with the de facto complainant has come before this court to apprise this court of the fact that the spouses have settled all their disputes and they are now residing separately as per harmonious agreement. It is prayed that invoking the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386], the prosecution against the petitioner may be quashed. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer. Respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel confirms that the matter has been settled and the offence compounded by the second respondent. Crl.M.C.No.4639/08 2 4. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in B.S.Joshi (Supra) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination all further proceedings against the petitioner which has now become irrelevant and unnecessary. 5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C No.332/07 pending before the learned J.F.C.M, Irinjalakkuda in which the petitioner is 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 his sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4639/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4639/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008