IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2269 of 2008()
1. RONSY K.P.@ ASWATHY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SETHU NATHAPANICKER, S/O.VISWANATHA
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2269 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008
O R D E R
Petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution under
Section 498 A IPC. Crime was registered, investigation was
conducted and final report was filed. The case against the co-
accused, i.e., father of the 1st respondent/1st accused, was
proceeded. He was found not guilty and acquitted. The case
against the 1st respondent/1st accused was split up and
proceedings against him is continuing as CC No.1037/04 before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Kottarakkara. It is at
this stage that the petitioner/defacto complainant has come before
this Court with a prayer that the surviving prosecution against the
1st respondent may be quashed. All outstanding disputes have
been settled. Parties have already agreed to dissolve the
relationship. In these circumstances, there is no necessity of
continuing with the proceedings, submits the counsel on behalf of
the petitioner/defacto complainant.
2. The 1st respondent has not entered appearance. The
learned Prosecutor was directed to take instructions. The learned
Crl.M.C. No. 2269 OF 2008
2
Prosecutor after taking instructions confirms that the parties have
willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and the petitioner has
compounded the offences allegedly committed by the 1st
respondent. I am satisfied from the facts and circumstances of
this case that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their
disputes and that if legally permissible and possible, composition
can be accepted and further proceedings can be quashed. The
offences under Section 498 A IPC is not legally compoundable.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances,
places reliance on the decisions in B.S.Joshi Vs. State of
Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] and Madam Mohan Abbot V. State
of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287].
3. I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this Case
that it is an eminently fit case where notwithstanding the fact that
the offences are not compoundable, powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C can be invoked as enabled by the decisions referred above
and the unnecessary further continuation of the prosecution can
be put to an end. The marital tie has already been dissolved by a
decree of the Court.
Crl.M.C. No. 2269 OF 2008
3
In the result:
i. This petition is allowed.
ii. CC No.1037/04 pending against the 1st
respondent before the JFMC-I, Kottarakkara is
hereby quashed.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
ttb
Crl.M.C. No. 2269 OF 2008
4
Crl.M.C. No. 2269 OF 2008
5