Suneesh Nair vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 205 of 2009()


1. SUNEESH NAIR, S/O.DAMODHARAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SOUDHAMINI AMMA, W/O.DAMODHARAN NAIR,
3. DAMODHARAN NAIR, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. DHANYA, D/O.RADHAKRISHNA MENON,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.DILIP

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :15/01/2009

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No.205 of 2009
                      -------------------------------------
             Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009

                                  ORDER

Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence

punishable under Section 498 A r/w 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has

been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police

after due investigation. Trial has not commenced. The

petitioners are the husband, mother in law and father in law

respectively of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.

2. The petitioners along with the 2nd respondent have

come to this Court now to apprise this Court of the fact that the

parties have settled their disputes as per Annexure-C agreement.

They have already agreed to harmoniously terminate the marital

tie. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through a

counsel. She has filed an affidavit to confirm

composition/settlement.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned counsel for the 2nd 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

Crl.M.C. No.205 of 2009 2

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 which has become unnecessary and irrelevant

now.

4. In the result:

i) This Crl.M.C is allowed;

ii) C.C.No.207 of 2008 pending before the Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class, Alathur, in which the petitioners

are the accused and the 2nd respondent is the defacto

complainant, is hereby quashed;

iii) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against

the petitioners and their sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C, shall

be disposed of in accordance with law.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-