IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4681 of 2008()
1. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.V.H.KASIM,
... Petitioner
2. KHADEEJA, W/O.V.H.KASIM, VALIYAVEETTIL
3. V.H.KASIM, S/O.HAMSA, VALIYAVEETTIL
4. ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY,
5. NAFEESA, W/O.ABDUL GAFOOR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. PYASA, D/O.T.A.RAHMAN, THALANJERY HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.ANTONY
For Respondent :SRI.KURIAKOSE.J.THEKKEL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :10/12/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.4681 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008
ORDER
Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences
punishable, inter alia, under Section 498 A I.P.C. Cognizance
has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the
police after due investigation. The 2nd respondent herein is the
defacto complainant/victim in that prosecution. The 1st
petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent and petitioners 2
to 5 are the relatives of the 1st petitioner. Final report has
already been filed. Cognizance has been taken. Trial has not
commenced so far.
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 dispute between them have been
settled and the 2nd respondent has compounded all offences
allegedly committed by the petitioners. The learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent confirms such settlement. Annexure-B
agreement between parties has been produced to confirm that
the matter has been settled and the offences have been
compounded. Crl.M.Appl.No.6857 of 2008 has been filed by the
Crl.M.C. No.4681 of 2008 2
petitioners and the 2nd respondent duly countersigned by their
respective counsel to confirm such settlement/composition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the 2nd
respondent pray, the learned Public Prosecutor after taking
instructions 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.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC
1386] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination
the prosecution against the petitioners which has now become
irrelevant and unnecessary.
4. In the result:
a) This Crl.M.C is allowed;
b) C.C.No.465 of 2008, pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thamarassery, in which
the petitioners are the accused and the 2nd respondent herein is
the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed;
c) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against
the petitioners and their sureties, shall be disposed of in
accordance with law.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-