IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4480 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.223/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,NEYYATTINKARA CRIME NO.360/06 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 5 --------------- 1. SAIDALI, S/O.AHAMMED KANNU, KOVILVILAKOM VEEDU, BEACH ROAD, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHERIFA BEEVI, D/O.MUHAMMED BEEVI, DO. DO. 3. HUROSHA, D/O.SHERIFA BEEVI, DO. DO. 4. ANISHA, D/O.SHERIFA BEEVI, DO. DO. 5. SAFARULLA, S/O.SAINULABDEEN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SANOOJA, D/O.JAMEELA BEEVI, SANOOJA MANZIL, ACHAMCODE, PEYAD, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4480 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offence punishable, inter alia, under Section 498A I.P.C. They are the husband, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and husband of a sister-in-law respectively of the defacto complainant, who is arrayed as the second respondent in this case. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after investigation. The case is pending. Trial has not commenced. 2. At this juncture, the petitioners, along with the second respondent, have come before this Court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled all their outstanding disputes. The matrimonial tie has been dissolved and all other claims have been settled. 3. The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel and filed an affidavit duly attested by her counsel. Crl.M.C.No. 4480 of 2008 2 Counsel for the second respondent submits that she has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. In these circumstances it is prayed that the continuation of the prosecution would be unnecessary and irrelevant. It is prayed that invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) the prosecution against the petitioners may be quashed. 4. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who does not oppose the application. 2. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in the decision referred above, can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioners. The spouses have agreed to dissolve the matrimonial tie, it is submitted. No children are born in the wedlock. Crl.M.C.No. 4480 of 2008 3 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.C. No. 223 of 2007, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Neyyattinkara in which the petitioners are the accused and the second respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioners and the sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm