IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2393 of 2008()
1. SUNI @ AJI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :25/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2393 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused facing indictment in a
prosecution under Sec.498A of the IPC. Cognizance was taken
on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due
investigation. Proceedings were initiated by the 2nd respondent
– wife of the petitioner herein. The prosecution is pending
before the learned Magistrate.
2. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties
have settled their disputes. They have now come before this
Court through their counsel to submit before this Court that
the matrimonial disputes between them have been settled and
the parties have separated by divorce. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that, in these circumstances, it is
unnecessary to permit the continuance of the proceedings.
Crl.M.C. No. 2393 of 2008 -: 2 :-
Powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked and the
proceedings may be quashed, it is prayed.
3. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through
counsel. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent confirms
that she is the de facto complainant in the crime and that she has
settled the disputes amicably. An affidavit has been filed by the
2nd respondent to confirm that the matter has been settled and
the 2nd respondent has compounded the offences allegedly
committed by the petitioner.
4. I am satisfied from the submissions at the Bar by the
learned counsel, the averments in the Crl.M.C. and the affidavit
filed by the 2nd respondent that the parties have willingly,
voluntarily and genuinely settled their disputes. If legally
permissible and possible, I am satisfied that the composition can
be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature
termination.
5. The offence under Sec.498A of the IPC is not
compoundable. But the learned counsel for the parties, in these
circumstances, rightly rely on the decisions of the Supreme
Court in B.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386)
and Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR
SCW 2287).
Crl.M.C. No. 2393 of 2008 -: 3 :-
6. Notice given and the learned Public Prosecutor does not
oppose the application. I am satisfied in the facts and
circumstances of this case that this is an eminently fit case
where the extraordinary inherent powers under Sec.482 of the
Cr.P.C. can and ought to be invoked to bring the premature
termination of the proceedings against the petitioner.
7. In the result:
(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.
(b) C.C.No.806/07 pending before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court, Kattakada, against the petitioner herein is
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge