IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4162 of 2008()
1. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 38, (A1)
... Petitioner
2. BHAVANANDAN, AGE 66 (A2),
3. GOMATHI, AGE 61 (A3), D/O. KOCHAPPI.
4. SINI, AGE 29 (A4),
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. LEJU, AGE 32, (CWI),
For Petitioner :SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/11/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4162 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November 2008
O R D E R
Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences
punishable inter alia under Section 498A read with 34 I.P.C. The
second respondent herein is the de facto complainant. She is the
wife of the first petitioner. The other petitioners are the
relatives of the first petitioner. Cognizance has been taken on
the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due
investigation. Petitioners along with the second respondent have
now come before this court to apprise this court of the fact that
the parties have settled their disputes amicably and the second
respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by
the petitioners. Though the offences are not compoundable, it is
prayed that the composition may be accepted and premature
termination of the prosecution may be directed invoking 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].
2. Second respondent has entered appearance through
counsel. Statement has been filed by the second respondent
duly attested by the learned counsel for the second respondent.
Crl.M.C.No.4162/08 2
3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no
objection against the quashing of proceedings.
4. I am satisfied that the parties have willingly and
voluntarily settled their disputes. I am further satisfied that this
is an eminently fit case where the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C, as explained in the dictum in B.S.Joshi (Supra) can and
ought to be invoked and proceedings initiated against the
petitioners by the second respondent brought to premature
termination.
5. In the result,
a) This Crl.M.C is allowed.
b) C.C No.1053/07 pending before the learned J.F.C.M,
Varkala against the petitioners herein wherein the second
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.4162/08 3
Crl.M.C.No.4162/08 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008