IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2344 of 2007()
1. VIJAYAN KANA,
... Petitioner
2. BHASKARAN KANA,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY
... Respondent
2. THANKAMANI.K.,
For Petitioner :SMT.T.SUDHAMANI
For Respondent :SRI.T.MADHU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :23/07/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2344 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioners are the husband and brother in law of the
defacto complainant, ie. the 2nd respondent herein. On the basis of
the allegations raised by the 2nd respondent, a crime was registered.
Investigation was completed and final report has been filed by the
police. Cognizance has already been taken by the learned Magistrate.
The case is now pending as C.C.No.734 of 2006 before the Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg.
2. The petitioners and the defacto complainant have now
come to this Court to apprise this Court that the disputes between
them have been settled and the defacto complainant has compounded
the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C raised against the petitioners.
Consequent to harmonious settlement of the disputes between them,
the 1st petitioner husband and the defacto complainant/2nd respondent
are residing together now. The continuance of this prosecution has
become unnecessary irritant in the relationship between the spouses.
It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the proceedings may be
quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri.T.Madhu, submits before the Court
that as a matter of fact, the parties have resumed co-habitation and
Crl.M.C.No.2344 of 2007 2
are residing harmoniously and happily now. I accept the said
statement of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent made
personally at the Bar and do not insist on any further joint statement
by the parties. I am satisfied, from the averments in the complaint
and from the statements made by the counsel at the Bar, that the
parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and the
defacto complainant/2nd respondent has compounded the offence
allegedly committed by the petitioners. If legally permissible, I am
satisfied that the composition can be accepted and further
proceedings can be dropped.
3. But the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C is not legally
compoundable. The counsel, in these circumstances, rightly rely on
the decision of the Supreme Court in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana
[A.I.R (2003) SC 1386]. That decision is authority for the proposition
that the interests of justice may at times transcend the interests of
mere law and in such circumstances, the stipulation of Section 320
Cr.P.C cannot be held to fetter the width, sweep and amplitude of the
powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to act in aid of justice.
I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this is an eminently fit
case, where such powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as explained in
B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386] ought to be
and deserve to be invoked.
Crl.M.C.No.2344 of 2007 3
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. C.C.No.734 of 2006
pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class – I, Hosdurg
is hereby quashed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-