IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 497 of 2009()
1. SHAJI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.RAJA
For Respondent :SMT.SIMLA PRABHAKARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/02/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.497 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of February 2009
O R D E R
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the
offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. Cognizance has
been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police
after due investigation. The crime in turn has been registered
on the basis of a complaint filed by the de facto complainant
before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The second respondent is the de facto
complainant. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the second
respondent and petitioners 2 to 4 are the relatives of the 1st
petitioner. The petitioners along with the second respondent
have come before this court through their counsel to apprise this
court of the fact that the parties have settled all their
outstanding disputes amicably and they have harmoniously
separated. A decree for dissolution of marriage by mutual
consent has already been passed by the Family Court. In these
circumstances, the petitioners have come before this court with
the prayer that the prosecution against them may be quashed.
2. The second respondent has entered appearance
through counsel to confirm settlement. A joint application for
Crl.M.C.No. 497/09 2
composition duly signed by the contestants and counter signed
by their respective counsel is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the second
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] 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 allowed.
b) C.C No.190/08 pending before the Munsiff
Magistrate, Paravoor in which the petitioners are the accused
and 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. 497/09 3
Crl.M.C.No. 497/09 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008