IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 205 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CC.NO.207 OF JFCM COURT, ALATHUR ........ (CRIME NO.264/2008 OF VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. SUNEESH NAIR, S/O.DAMODHARAN NAIR, "SUDHINI" NEAR BANK JUNCTION, KANNAMBRA, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SOUDHAMINI AMMA, W/O.DAMODHARAN NAIR, "SUDHINI" NEAR BANK JUNCTION, KANNAMBRA, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. DAMODHARAN NAIR, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, "SUDHINI" NEAR BANK JUNCTION, KANNAMBRA, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. DHANYA, D/O.RADHAKRISHNA MENON, AGED 25 YEARS, MECHERY HOUSE, SASTHAPURAM, KOTTAYI, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM FOR R1 ADV. SRI.C.DILIP FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.205 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498 A r/w 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Trial has not commenced. The petitioners are the husband, mother in law and father in law respectively of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. 2. The petitioners along with the 2nd respondent have come to this Court now to apprise this Court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes as per Annexure-C agreement. They have already agreed to harmoniously terminate the marital tie. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. She has filed an affidavit to confirm composition/settlement. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for 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 Crl.M.C. No.205 of 2009 2 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution which has become unnecessary and irrelevant now. 4. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) C.C.No.207 of 2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Alathur, in which the petitioners are the accused and the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed; iii) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C, shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-