IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 46 of 2009() ----------------------- CC.117/2008 of J.F.C.M-II, PEERUMEDU .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- MOLLY JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. JOHNSON, CHANDANAKKAD, VELLARAMKUNNU, KUMILI, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.46 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. Her husband, the accused is the second respondent herein. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has already been taken. The matter is at the stage of trial before the learned Magistrate. At this stage, the petitioner has come to this court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes. The spouses have resumed harmonious co-habitation. The de facto complainant have no surviving grievance against her husband inasmuch as the matter is settled and the parties are living harmoniously, the continuation of the prosecution is unnecessary, irrelevant and irritant in the relationship between the parties. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C available to this court may be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant surviving prosecution against the second respondent. Crl.M.C.No.46/09 2 2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor raises no objection. He confirms that the disputes have been settled between the parties and harmonious co-habitation has been resumed. I am, in these circumstances, 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 second respondent. 3. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C No.117/08 pending before the learned J.F.C.M-II, Peerumedu in which the second respondent is the the accused and the petitioner 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 second respondent and his sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.46/09 3 Crl.M.C.No.46/09 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008