IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2170 of 2008()
1. AMBIKA.C, D/O. JANARDHANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.DIVAKARAN, S/O. MADHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. M.SAKUNTHALA, W/O. MADHAVAN,
3. M.JANAKI, D/O.MADHAVAN,
4. M.VASANTHA, D/O.MADHAVAN,
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
6. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.CIBI THOMAS
For Respondent :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2170 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a crime
registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section
498 A IPC. Respondents 1 to 4 in this Crl.M.C are her husband
and relatives of the husband. Investigation is in progress. The
crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed
by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and referred by the
learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner/defacto complainant and the respondents 1
to 4 have now appeared before this Court through their respective
counsel. They submit that all the disputes have been settled
harmoniously and the spouses have now resumed cohabitation.
In these circumstances the petitioner/defacto complainant does
not want to further prosecute her grievance against respondents 1
to 4/accused. In these circumstances, the defacto complainant
prays, and the respondents endorse that request, that the crime
registered against respondents 1 to 4 may be quashed. In as
Crl.M.C. No. 2170 OF 2008
2
much as the parties have agreed to resume cohabitation
harmoniously, continuance of this prosecution would result in great
prejudice and hardship to the parties. Such prejudice and
hardship may be avoided and the parties may be permitted to
resolve their dispute and resume harmonious cohabitation.
3. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the matter has been
settled between the parties. A joint statement to that effect has
been filed by the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 4. I am
satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar by the counsel for
the rival contestants and the documents filed before the Court by
the parties have settled their dispute and that the petitioner herein
has compounded the offences allegedly committed by
respondents 1 to 4/accused. The learned Prosecutor expresses
some reservations on the ground that the settlement has been
agreed on the promise of resumption of cohabitation and not on
the basis of actual resumption of cohabitation. When queried the
learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant submits that
the disputes have been settled and resumption of cohabitation
Crl.M.C. No. 2170 OF 2008
3
shall take place shortly as undertaken by the 1st respondent.
Counsel for the 1st respondent also makes this undertaking before
the Court, on behalf of the 1st respondent.
4. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the parties
have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and the
petitioner has compounded the offences allegedly committed by
respondents 1 to 4/accused. If legally permissible, I am satisfied
that the composition can be accepted and the premature
termination of the proceedings can be brought also.
5. But the offence under Section 498 A IPC is not
compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Counsel in these
circumstances, rightly relied 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]. I am satisfied that in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, accepting the
agreement for future harmonious cohabitation, the request can be
accepted and the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be
invoked.
Crl.M.C. No. 2170 OF 2008
4
6. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Proceedings in
Crime No.354/2008 of Thalassery Police Station is hereby
quashed.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
ttb
Crl.M.C. No. 2170 OF 2008
5
Crl.M.C. No. 2170 OF 2008
6