IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3516 of 2008()
1. PULIKKADAN RAVI, S/O.AMBU MANIYANI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. SHOBHANA, D/O.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT
For Petitioner :SMT.T.SUDHAMANI
For Respondent :SRI.R.VINU RAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :23/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3516 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution under
Section 498 A I.P.C. The 2nd respondent is the defacto
complainant. Investigation is pending. Final report has not
been filed yet.
2. At this stage, the petitioner and the 2nd
respondent have come to this Court through their counsel to
apprise this Court of the fact that the dispute between them
have been settled amicably and that the 2nd respondent has
compounded the offence allegedly committed by the
petitioner herein. They have decided to terminate the
marital tie by mutual consent. They have entered into
Annexure-II agreement. In these circumstances, it is
prayed that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be
invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
Crl.M.C. No.3516 of 2008 2
3. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance
through counsel. The counsel confirms that the matter has
been settled as per Annexure-II agreement. Notice was
given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public
Prosecutor raises no objection against the quashing of
proceedings.
4. I am satisfied that there has been genuine and
voluntary settlement of the dispute between parties and the
2nd respondent has compounded the offence allegedly
committed by the petitioner herein. If legally possible and
permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be
accepted and premature termination of the proceedings can
be brought about.
5. 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]. That decision is
authority for the proposition that the powers under Section
Crl.M.C. No.3516 of 2008 3
482 Cr.P.C are wide and sweeping and can be pressed into
service when the interests of justice so demand. The
interests of justice, it is held, may at times 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 powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case
where the said dictum can be invoked and the proceedings
can be brought to premature termination.
7. In the result:
i) This Crl.M.C is, allowed;
ii) Crime No.445 of 2008, registered at the Hosdurg
Police Station against the petitioner under Section 498 A
I.P.C at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein, is hereby
quashed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-