IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 157 of 2009() ----------------------------------- C.C. NO.148/08 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA. ............. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 ------------------------- 1. RATHEESH VARGHESE,S/O.K.P.VARGHESE, AGED 29 YRS,BIJOY VILLA,NALKALICKAL MURI,ARANMULA VILLAGE,KOZHANCHERRY TALUK,NALKALIKKAL.P.O, ARANMULA,PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.689533. 2. K.P.VARGHESE,S/O.PAPPI VARGHESE,AGED 64 YRS,BIJOY VILLA,NALKALICKAL MURI, ARANMULA VILLAGE KOZHANCHERRY TALUK, NALKALIKKAL.P.O,ARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.689533. 3. P.J.MARIAMMA,W/O.K.P.VARGHESE, AGED 6O YEARS,BIJOY VILLA,NALKALICKAL MURI, ARANMULA VILLAGE, KOZHANCHERRY TALUK,NALKALIKKAL. P.O,ARANMULA,PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.689533. 4. RENJITH VARGHESE, S/O.K.P.VARGHESE, AGED 32 YRS,BIJOY VILLA,NALKALICKAL MURI, ARANMULA VILLAGE,KOZHANCHERRY TALUK, NALKALIKKAL.P.O,ARANMULA,PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.689533. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. VINEETHA MATHEW,D/O.MATHEW CHACKO, AGED 25 YRS,RESIDING AT OTTAPURACKAL HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA.P.O,(VIA)CHENGANOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.HARIKRISHNAN FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 157 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.498A read with Sec.34 IPC. The 1st respondent herein is the de facto complainant. She is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The other petitioners are the relatives of the 1st petitioner. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Trial has not commenced yet. 2. At this juncture the petitioners along with the 1st respondent have come before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that the disputes have been settled between the parties. They have agreed to dissolve the marital tie. In these circumstances, the 1st respondent does not want any prosecution to continue against the petitioners. It is prayed Crl.M.C. No. 157 of 2009 -: 2 :- that powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution which is continuing against the petitioners. 3. The 1st respondent has entered appearance through counsel. She has filed an affidavit duly attested by her counsel to confirm such settlement/composition. An agreement entered into between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent is also produced to confirm such settlement/composition. 4. 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 Sec.482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in B.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioners. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order. 5. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) C.C.No.148/08 pending before the learned JFCM-I, Pathanamthitta, in which the petitioners are the accused and the 1st respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. Crl.M.C. No. 157 of 2009 -: 3 :- (c) Needless to say, the proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties under Sec.446 Cr.P.C. shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge