High Court Kerala High Court

Shanmughan vs Kanakam on 19 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Shanmughan vs Kanakam on 19 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4972 of 2008()


1. SHANMUGHAN, S/O.NARAYANACHARI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KANAKAM, W/O.SHANMUGHAM,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AYPE JOSEPH

                For Respondent  :SRI.BENNY VARGHESE (THETTAYIL)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/12/2008

 O R D E R
                             R. BASANT, J.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Crl.M.C.No. 4972 of 2008
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008

                                O R D E R

The petitioner is the sole accused facing indictment in a

prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.

Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint

filed by the first respondent herein. Though three more accused

were arrayed as accused, cognizance was taken by the learned

Magistrate only against the petitioner herein, who is the husband

of the first accused.

2. Trial has not commenced. During the pendency of the

proceedings, the petitioner/accused and the first respondent/

complainant 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 petitioner.

The spouses are now residing separately and they have agreed

that the matrimonial tie can be dissolved.

3. The first respondent has entered appearance through

counsel to confirm such settlement/composition. An affidavit

Crl.M.C.No. 4972 of 2008
2

duly attested has been filed by the first respondent to confirm such

settlement.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays, the learned

counsel for the first respondent 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.

5. In the result:

a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed.

b) C.C. No. 3631 of 2007, pending before the Judicial First

Class Magistrate-I, Aluva, in which the petitioner is the sole 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)
tm                                                 Judge

Crl.M.C.No. 4972 of 2008
                           3