IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 361 of 2009()
1. K.M.C.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
... Petitioner
2. K.M.C.KUNHAMI, W/O ABDUL RAHIMAN,
3. K.M.C.FATHIMA, D/O.K.M.C.KUNHAMI,
4. K.M.C.KHADEEJA, D/O ABDUL RAHIMAN,
5. K.M.C.ABOOBACKER,S/O BEEFATHIMA,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY P.PROSECUTOR,
... Respondent
2. KHADEEJA ANEHILATH, D/O LATE AHAMMAD,
For Petitioner :SMT.T.SUDHAMANI
For Respondent :SMT.V.RENJU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/01/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 361 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009
O R D E R
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under
Section 498A I.P.C. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a
final report submitted by the police after due investigation in a
crime. That crime in turn was registered on the basis of a private
complaint filed by the second respondent before the learned
Magistrate and forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is complete. Trial
has not commenced. The petitioners are the husband and
relatives of the defacto complainant, who is arrayed as the second
respondent in this petition.
2. The petitioners and the second respondent have now
come before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that the
parties have settled all their outstanding disputes and the second
respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by
the petitioners. The first petitioner and the second respondent
Crl.M.C.No. 361 of 2009
2
have now decided harmoniously to terminate the marital tie in
accordance with law.
3. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who does not
oppose the application. The second respondent has entered appearance
through counsel and has filed an affidavit duly attested by the counsel
to confirm such settlement/composition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent
pray, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am
satisfied that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction 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, irrelevant and superfluous prosecution surviving against
the petitioners.
6. In the result:
a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed.
b) C.C.671 of 2008 pending before the J.F.M.C.-II, Hosdurg, in
which the petitioners are the accused and the second respondent, the
defacto complainant, is hereby quashed.
Crl.M.C.No. 361 of 2009
3
c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if
any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed
of in accordance with law.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm