IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4582 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.320/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA CRIME NO.101/07 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O. VASANTHI, AYYAPLATH PUTHENVEETIL, PALLURUTHY, VADAKKANCHERRY. 2. VASANTHY AMMA, W/O. BHASKARA MENON, AYYAPALATH PUTHENVEETTIL, PALLURUTHY, VADAKKANCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. LATHA, D/O. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, AANDHAPPALLY, VALLAPPODI DESOM, KODAKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODAKARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4582 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w. 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Trial has not commenced. 2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they being the husband and mother-in-law of the first respondent/defacto complainant are guilty of the offence of matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety. 2. At this juncture, the petitioners and the first respondent have come before this Court to report to this court that they have settled the disputes and the first respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. The spouses have resumed harmonious cohabitation, it is submitted. Crl.M.C.No. 4582 of 2008 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the first respondent pray, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and 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 B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioners. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.C. No. 320 of 2007, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda, in which the petitioners are the accused and the first 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