IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2417 of 2007()
1. NASEER, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.HUSSAIN,
... Petitioner
2. NASEEMA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.HUSSAIN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. FOUSYA, AGED 23 YEARS, W/O.NASEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
For Respondent :SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/07/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 2417 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under Section
498A I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a complaint
filed by the second respondent/defacto complainant. The first
petitioner is the husband and second petitioner is the mother-in-law
of the defacto complainant. Final report has been filed. The matter
is pending before the learned Magistrate as C.C.1920 of 2004.
Pending the proceedings, it is submitted, that the petitioners have
settled their disputes with the defacto complainant. The defacto
complainant has compounded the offences allegedly committed by
the petitioners. The first petitioner and the second respondent had
resumed cohabitation. The second respondent is now pregnant also,
it is submitted.
2. The second respondent has entered appearance through
counsel and the parties have filed a joint statement duly counter
signed by their counsel to satisfy the court that the matter has been
settled and the second respondent has compounded the offences
allegedly committed by the petitioners.
Crl.M.C.No. 2417 of 2007
2
3. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar, from the
averments in the Crl.M.C. and from the joint statement filed that the
parties have settled their disputes and the defacto complainant has
compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. If legally
permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and
proceedings can be brought to premature termination.
4. 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 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. 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.
Crl.M.C.No. 2417 of 2007
3
5. This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. C.C. No. 1920 of 2004,
pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi against the
petitioners is hereby quashed.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm