IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 23 of 2009() ----------------------- CC.458/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PREETHYRAJ, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, 459 A, KADAVATH HOUSE, PARAYAKAD, CHITTATUKARA, PARAVUR TALUK. 2. RAMANI, W/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN,459 A,KADAVATH HOUSE, PARAYAKAD, CHITTAKUKARA, PARAVUR TALUK. 3. PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.PAPPU,459 A, KADAVATH HOUSE, PARAYAKKAD, CHITTATUKARA, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY SMT.ANN EMIL JOSEPH SRI.BOSE K.THACHIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 2. DHANYA,D/O.GOPALAN, PATHISSERY HOUSE, KARAYAMUTTOM DESOM, VALAPPADU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. ADV. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY FOR R2 SMT.RINTA GEORGE FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 23 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.498A read with Sec.34 IPC. They are the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the de facto complainant who has been arrayed as the 2nd respondent herein. 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 and the 2nd respondent have come before this Court through their counsel to apprise this Court of the fact that all outstanding disputes between them have been settled and the 2nd respondent has compounded the offence under Sec.498A IPC alleged against the petitioners. The 2nd respondent has appeared through Crl.M.C. No. 23 of 2009 -: 2 :- counsel and has filed an affidavit duly attested by her counsel to confirm such settlement/composition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the 2nd 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 surviving against the petitioners which has become unnecessary and irrelevant now. 4. In the result: (a) This Crll.M.C. Is allowed. (b) C.C.No.458/08 pending before the learned JMFC, North Parur, against the petitioners in which the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. (c) Needless to say, the proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties under Sec.446 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No. 23 of 2009 -: 3 :- shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. SD/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge