U K MUHAMMED SHAJAHAN Vs. P MUBASHIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 366(A) I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against him is that he had committed the said offence against the first respondent herein as also the additional fourth respondent. The first respondent is the daughter of the additional fourth respondent.

(2.) The petitioner, along with first and additional fourth respondent has filed a petition as Crl.M.A.No.95/07 in which it is reported that the parties have settled all their disputes. The petitioner and the first respondent were in-law and the allegation relates to the elopement of the first respondent with the petitioner herein. The additional fourth respondent had filed a complaint. The first respondent was a minor at the relevant point of time.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for respondents 1 and 4 submit that all disputes between the parties have been settled amicably. The petitioner has married the first respondent. A child was born in the wedlock on 26/4/2005. The petitioner and the first respondent are living a happy and harmonious married live. The fourth respondent has no grievance now and the matter has been settled. In these circumstances, it will be traversity of justice to compel the petitioner to face the prosecution even now. The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.1162/2004. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents 1 and 4 pray that the composition may be taken note of and this prosecution which has lost all its meaning, relevance and significance may be put an end to by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] may be invoked even though the offence under Section 366A I.P.C is not a compoundable offence.