IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3195 of 2008()
1. SHANAVAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/08/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3195 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of August 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused and he faces indictment in a
prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. The second respondent, his
wife, is the de facto complainant in that crime. The crime has been
registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the
learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the
police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Cognizance was taken by the
learned Magistrate on the basis of a final report submitted by the
police after due investigation. The matter is pending before the
learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur as
C.C.No.238/05. During the pendency of the proceedings, the
spouses appear to have settled their disputes. They have entered
into Annexure 2 agreement, it is submitted. The marital tie has
been dissolved. They are residing separately without any dispute.
The second respondent/ de facto complainant has compounded the
offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. In these
circumstances, the petitioner and the second respondent who have
appeared through their counsel before this court together pray that
the prosecution against the petitioner which has become irrelevant,
unnecessary and redundant may be quashed invoking the
Crl.M.C.No.3195/08 2
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs.
State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386].
2. The offence under Section 498A I.P.C is not legally
compoundable. But it is now trite that as enabled by the decision
in B.S.Joshi (Supra), such composition can be taken note of to
quash the proceedings invoking the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction. I am satisfied that there has been a genuine,
voluntary and bona fide settlement. I am satisfied that the prayer
in this petition can be allowed. The second respondent has
entered appearance through Adv.Sri.Jacob Sebastian. The learned
counsel for the second respondent confirms that the matter has
been harmoniously settled between the parties.
3. In the result,
a) This petition is allowed.
b) C.C.No.238/2005 before the learned J.F.C.M, Payyannur
is hereby quashed.
c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446
Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioner or their sureties shall
be disposed of in accordance with law.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.3195/08 3
Crl.M.C.No.3195/08 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008