IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2213 of 2008()
1. PRAVEEN KULANGARA, W/O PAVITHRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. AJITHA S.R. D/O RAJAN, ETTUKANDATHIL
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/06/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2213 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of June 2008
O R D E R
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the
petitioner who is the sole accused in a prosecution under Section
498A I.P.C prays that the prosecution launched against him by
the police may now be quashed.
2. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final
report submitted by the police. Investigation commenced on the
basis of a complaint of the second respondent herein. During the
pendency of the prosecution before the learned Magistrate, the
petitioner and the second respondent have now settled their
disputes. Their matrimonial tie has been severed on an
application filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The second respondent has no quarrel or dispute with the
petitioner herein. She has already settled the disputes and has
compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner.
The second respondent has filed an affidavit duly attested in
which she confirms that she has settled and compromised the
disputes. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the
Crl.M.C.No.2213/08 2
respondent who has appeared before this court submit that the
matter has been settled. I am satisfied from the submissions
made at the Bar and from the materials made available in this
Crl.M.C that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled
their disputes. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the
composition can be accepted and the prosecution against the
petitioner can be brought to premature termination.
3. But the offence under Section 498A I.P.C is not legally
compoundable. The learned counsel for the contestants, in these
circumstances, rely on the decisions in B.S.Joshi vs. State of
Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] and Madan Mohan Abbot v.
State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287]. The learned counsel
pray that notwithstanding the fact that the offence is not
compoundable, extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to ensure the interests of justice.
4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I
am persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can
be invoked as enabled by the decisions referred above and
proceedings against the petitioner can be brought to premature
termination.
Crl.M.C.No.2213/08 3
5. In the result,
a) This Crl.M.C is allowed.
b) C.C No.991/2004 pending before the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-II, Peermade against the petitioner under
Section 498A I.P.C is hereby quashed.
6. No proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C is pending
against the petitioner or the sureties, submits the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Needless to say, if there be any such
proceedings pending the same must be disposed of in
accordance with law.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.2213/08 4
Crl.M.C.No.2213/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007