Santhosh Kumar vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 30 May, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1736 of 2007()


1. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.PARVATHI AMMA,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. LATHIKA P.S.,W/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :30/05/2007

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J.

                           ----------------------

                         Crl.M.C.No.1736 of 2007

                       ----------------------------------------

                  Dated this the 30th day of May 2007




                                  O R D E R

The petitioners are spouses and they are the accused and

defacto complainant respectively in a prosecution interalia under

Section 498A I.P.C. They have come together before this court

with a prayer that the prosecution initiated against the petitioner

may be quashed. The spouses having settled their disputes and

having resumed harmonious co-habitation. The same counsel

appears for both of them. He has produced before the court an

authorised affidavit as Annexure C which confirms the

settlement of the dispute between the parties and the

resumption of co-habitation by them. I am satisfied from the

averments in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and from the

submissions made at the bar and in the light of Annexure C that

the parties have settled their disputes thoroughly and amicably

and they have resumed co-habitation. If legally permissible, I am

satisfied that the submissions about the settlement can be

accepted and the case against the petitioner brought to

premature termination.

Crl.M.C.No.1736/07 2

2. But the offence under Section 498A is not

compoundable. But the counsel rightly relies on the decision in

B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386]. That

decision is authority for the proposition that the interests of

justice may, at times, transcend the interests of mere law and in

such circumstances the stipulations of Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot

fetter the sweep, width and amplitude of the jurisdiction of this

court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied, in these

circumstances, that the proceedings against the first petitioner

initiated by the second petitioner can now be brought to

premature termination.

3. In the result, this petition is allowed. Crime No.52/07

of Pandikkad police station is hereby quashed.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.1736/07 3

Crl.M.C.No.1736/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007