IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2833 of 2008()
1. PAVITHRAN, AGED 57
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOCHUTRESIA, AGED 47
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL
For Respondent :SMT.V.BEENA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/07/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2833 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence
punishable under Section 498 A I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken
on the basis of a final report filed by the police after due
investigation. Crime was registered as early as in 2001. Calendar
Case was also registered in 2001. The prosecution is pending
before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Aluva. The
petitioner/accused and the 1st respondent/complainant have now
come before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that the
disputes between them have been settled and that the 1st
respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by
the petitioner. They have actually resumed harmonious
cohabitation from 2006. In these circumstances it is prayed that
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in
B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386] may be
invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against
the petitioner herein.
2. The petitioner and the 1st respondent have entered
appearance through counsel. A joint application for composition
Crl.M.C. No.2833 of 2008 2
duly signed by the petitioner and the 1st respondent and
countersigned by their counsel has already been filed. The
learned counsel for the 1st respondent vouches for the fact that
the matter has been settled and for the signature of the 1st
respondent in the joint compromise petition. I am satisfied from
the totality of circumstances that the disputes between the
parties have been settled amicably and that the 1st respondent
has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the
petitioner herein. If legally permissible, the composition can be
accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature
termination.
3. But the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C is not legally
compoundable. Counsel in these circumstances rightly place
reliance on the decision in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R
(2003) SC 1386] and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab
[2008 A.I.R SCW 2287].
4. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this
case that this is an eminently fit case where invoking the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in the cases
referred above, the prosecution against the petitioner can be
brought to premature termination.
Crl.M.C. No.2833 of 2008 3
5. It is submitted that proceedings against the sureties
are pending under Section 446 Cr.P.C. The same must be brought
to its logical conclusion. In that proceedings, the
petitioner/sureties shall be entitled to urge all circumstances
including the circumstance that the case has subsequently been
brought to premature termination on compromise of the parties.
6. In the result:
i) This Crl.M.C is, allowed;
ii) C.C.No.1033 of 2001, against the petitioner pending
before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Aluva, is hereby
quashed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-