IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3090 of 2008()
1. SAMJATH & ORS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA & ANR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS
For Respondent :SRI.RENJITH THOMAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/08/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 3090 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the
offence punishable under Section 498A r/w. 34 I.P.C. The first
petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant/R2 and the
other petitioners are the relatives of the first petitioner.
Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted
by the police after investigation. That case is pending before the
JFMC, N. Parur. During the pendency of the proceedings the
parties have settled their disputes.
2. The petitioners, along with the second respondent, have
come before this Court to apprise this court of the fact that the
parties have settled their disputes amicably during the pendency
of the prosecution. They pray that the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in B.S. Joshi v. State of
Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) may be invoked to prematurely
terminate the unnecessary prosecution against the petitioners.
Crl.M.C.No. 3090 of 2008
2
3. The second respondent has entered appearance through
counsel. Annex.A2 joint statement has been filed by the rival
contestants. Counsel for the second respondent vouches for the fact
that the second respondent has signed Annex.A2 and that she has
settled the disputes and compounded the offences allegedly committed
by the petitioners.
4. I am satisfied from the totality of circumstances that there has
been a genuine and voluntary settlement of the disputes and that the
second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed
by the petitioners. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the
composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to
premature termination.
5. The offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is not legally
compoundable and the composition cannot be accepted under Section
320 Cr.P.C. But the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the
decision in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386).
The said decision is authority for the proposition that at times the
interests of justice may transcend the interests of mere law and in such
Crl.M.C.No. 3090 of 2008
3
circumstances the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be
reckoned as a fetter on the sweeping powers of the Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to act in aid of justice.
6. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the help of the dictum in B.S.
Joshi can be invoked and the proceedings against the petitioners
brought to premature termination.
7. In the result:
a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed.
b) C.C. No. 350 of 2008, pending before the Judicial First
Class Magistrate, N. Parur against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
c) Proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending will be
disposed of in accordance with law.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm