E.P.Sreejith vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2006

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 55 of 2006(B)


1. E.P.SREEJITH, S/O.P.T.RAMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. M.V.VINDIA, D/O.K.V.VIJAYAN, AGED 27

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SURENDRAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :15/12/2006

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J.

                      ------------------------------------

                        Crl.M.C.NO.55 OF 2006

                      ------------------------------------

             Dated this the 15th day of December, 2006.


                                   ORDER

The petitioners including the supplemental petitioners are

the accused facing prosecution for the offence punishable under

Section 498 A read with 34 I.P.C. When this petition came up for

hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

counsel for the 2nd respondent reported to the Court that the

matter has been settled between the parties and the offence

committed by the petitioners has been compounded by the 2nd

respondent/defacto complainant. The 1st petitioner is the

husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and

petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st petitioner/accused.

It is submitted that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and

the defacto complainant has now been dissolved as per

Annexure-C order and the parties have settled all their disputes

and the 2nd respondent has compounded the offence allegedly

committed by the petitioners.

2. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar,

and from the joint statement filed by the parties that the disputes

have been settled and the offence has been compounded by the

Crl.M.C.NO.55 OF 2006 2

2nd respondent. The offence under Section 498 A I.P.C is not

compoundable. But invoking the dictum in B.S.Joshy v. State

of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) S.C 1386], I am satisfied that the

proceedings can be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, allowed.

C.C.No.585 of 2005 pending before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Thalassery against all the petitioners –

including the supplemental petitioners 2 & 3, shall stand

quashed.

R.BASANT

JUDGE

rtr/