IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 181 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.352/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- II,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. R.SREEKUMAR, S/O.RAVEENDRA PANICKER AGED 40 YEARS, BINDU NIVAS, NEAR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAVEENDRA PANICKER, S/O.RAVEENDRA PANICKER AGED 69 YEARS BINDU NIVAS, NEAR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. D.VASANTHI, D/O. DAKSHAYANI AGED 50 YEARS,BINDU NIVAS, NEAR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. RESHMI RAJ. R.V, D/O. D.K.GEETHA AGED 29 YEARS, ST. NIVAS, TC 42/655 VALLAKADAVU PO, MUTTATHARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.181 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January 2009 O R D E R Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 498A I.P.C. Petitioners 1 to 3 are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the de facto complainant/ second respondent. Investigation is complete. Final report has been filed. Cognizance has already been taken. Trial has not commenced. 2. At this juncture, the petitioners along with the second respondent have come before this court through their respective counsel to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled all their outstanding disputes and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. An affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. A joint application for composition duly signed by the rival contestants and counter signed by their respective counsel has also been filed. The spouses have settled their disputes and marital tie has already been dissolved as per a joint application for divorce submitted by them, it is submitted. Crl.M.C.No. 181/09 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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 Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioners. 4. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C No.352/08 pending before the learned J.F.C.M-II, Neyyattinkara in which the petitioners are 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 petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No. 181/09 3 Crl.M.C.No. 181/09 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008