IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4871 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.24/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JOSEPAUL, 38 YEARS, S/O.PAUL, THATHANATT HOUSE, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. PRINCE, AGED 42, BABY, MONAYIKODATHU HOUSE, PUTHENPALLY VARAPUZHA. 3. ANIL, AGED 28, S/O.RAJAPPAN, PULLUKATTUV ELIYIL, NORTH OF F.C.CONVENT, UDAYAMPERROR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JILBY, AGED 35, S/O.THOMAS, PARAPPILLY HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR, 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4871 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January 2009 O R D E R Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 363 read with 511 I.P.C. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant/victim who has been arrayed in this proceedings as the 1st respondent. 2nd petitioner is the relative of the 1st petitioner. 3rd petitioner is the friend of the 1st petitioner. There were various disputes between the 1st petitioner/husband and the 1st respondent/wife including the dispute regarding the custody of their five year old son. On the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent/wife, the police had registered a crime. Investigation was conducted and final report was filed alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 363 read with 511 I.P.C. All other offences alleged are legally compoundable offences. 2. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. But trial has not commenced yet. At this juncture, the three petitioners along with the 1st respondent, has come before this court through their counsel to apprise this court of Crl.M.C.No.4871/08 2 the fact that all outstanding disputes between the petitioners and the 1st respondent have already been settled amicably. It is reported that the spouses have decided to harmoniously terminate the marital relationship and have already secured an order of divorce. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the parties do not want to proceed further with the matter and the 1st respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the 1st 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 Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386], Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287], Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008(3) KLT 769(SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT 417 SC] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioners. Crl.M.C.No.4871/08 3 4. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C No.24/07 pending before the learned J.F.C.M, Perumbavoor in which the petitioners are the accused and the 1st respondent 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 petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4871/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4871/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008