IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2669 of 2007()
1. SHIBINA.P., D/O AABU HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O KOYAMU HAJI,
... Respondent
2. MARIYA HAJUMMA, W/O KOYAMU HAJI,
3. MUJEEB, S/O KOYAMU HAJI,
4. AYISA, W/O LATE MAMMU,
5. K.MUHAMMED ALI, S/O KOYAMU HAJI,
6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.CIBI THOMAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :21/08/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2669 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of August 2007
O R D E R
Respondents/Accused 1 to 5 face indictment in a
prosecution inter alia for the offences punishable under Section
498A I.P.C. They are husband and relatives of the de facto
complainant, the petitioner herein. A private complaint was filed
by the petitioner herein. The same was referred to the police
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation was completed and
final report was filed by the police after due investigation.
Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The
matter is pending before the learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Thamarasseri as C.C.No.19/07.
2. The petitioner/de facto complainant and respondents
1 to 5/accused have come before this court now to report to the
court that the disputes between them have been settled amicably
and the petitioner has compounded the offences allegedly
committed by the accused persons. Divorce has been effected
and the spouses are residing separately. The respondents are
represented by counsel. Their counsel also asserts that the
Crl.M.C.No.2669/07 2
matter is settled. A joint statement duly signed by the petitioner
and the respondents 1 to 5 and counter signed by their
respective counsel is also filed.
3. I am satisfied from the averments in the Criminal
Miscellaneous Case, the submissions made at the Bar and the
joint statements filed by the parties that the parties have
willingly and voluntarily settled the disputes among them. I am
satisfied that if legally permissible, the settlement and
composition can be accepted and premature termination of the
proceedings can be achieved. But the offence under Section
498A I.P.C. is not legally compoundable. The learned counsel for
the contestants, in these circumstances, rightly rely on the
decision of the Supreme Court 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 be held to fetter the
sweep, width and amplitude of the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that this is
an eminently fit case where the powers under Section 482
Crl.M.C.No.2669/07 3
Cr.P.C, as explained in the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs. State of
Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386], can and ought to be invoked and
proceedings initiated against the respondents by the petitioner
brought to premature termination.
4. In the result, this petition is allowed. C.C.No.19/07
pending before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Thamarasseri against respondents 1 to 5 is hereby
quashed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
Crl.M.C.No.2669/07 4
Crl.M.C.No.2669/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007