IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4257 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.769/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... (CRIM NO.92/2007 OF THE GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. ANIL, S/O BALAN, AGED 30 YEARS, PULLANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAMBAZHIKAD,AALOOR VILLAGE. 2. BALAN, AGED 59,S/O ALALCHKUTTI, PULLANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAMBAZHIKAD, AALOOR VILLAGE. 3. SUJATHA, AGED 51, W/O.BALAN, PULLANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAMBAZHIKAD, AALOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MANJU ANIL, AGED 25, D/O.MANI, THINNIYATH HOUSE, KADOOKADU DESOM, VEELVATTOM VILLGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PULLANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAMBAZHIKAD, AALOOR VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR FOR R1 ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4257 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498 A r/w 34 I.P.C. They are the husband, father in law and mother in law respectively of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. Altogether there are 3 accused persons. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Trial has not commenced. 2. At this stage, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent have come before this Court through their counsel to apprise this Court of the fact that the disputes between them have been settled; that the spouses have resumed harmonious cohabitation; and that the 2nd respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners. In view of such settlement, it is unnecessary and irrelevant to permit continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel. A joint application for composition has been filed by the parties duly countersigned by their counsel. The learned counsel for the Crl.M.C. No.4257 of 2008 2 2nd respondent confirms the settlement and composition of the offence by the 2nd respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the 2nd respondent pray, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer and I am 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.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386] can and ought to be invoked to bring to premature termination the surviving prosecution against the petitioners. 5. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is, allowed; ii) C.C.No.769 of 2007, pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad, against the petitioners in which the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed. iii) If any proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C is pending against the petitioners and their sureties, it must be disposed of by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-