IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 4096 of 2006()
1. U.K.MUHAMMED SHAJAHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.MUBASHIRA,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.SUMOD
For Respondent :SMT.A.LOWSY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :08/01/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4096 of 2006
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of January 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
Section 366(A) I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against him is
that he had committed the said offence against the first
respondent herein as also the additional fourth respondent. The
first respondent is the daughter of the additional fourth
respondent.
2. The petitioner, along with first and additional fourth
respondent has filed a petition as Crl.M.A.No.95/07 in which it is
reported that the parties have settled all their disputes. The
petitioner and the first respondent were in-law and the
allegation relates to the elopement of the first respondent with
the petitioner herein. The additional fourth respondent had filed
a complaint. The first respondent was a minor at the relevant
point of time.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
counsel for respondents 1 and 4 submit that all disputes between
the parties have been settled amicably. The petitioner has
Crl.M.C.No.4096/06 2
married the first respondent. A child was born in the wedlock on
26/4/2005. The petitioner and the first respondent are living a
happy and harmonious married live. The fourth respondent has
no grievance now and the matter has been settled. In these
circumstances, it will be traversity of justice to compel the
petitioner to face the prosecution even now. The petitioner is
the sole accused in S.C.No.1162/2004. In these circumstances,
the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the
respondents 1 and 4 pray that the composition may be taken
note of and this prosecution which has lost all its meaning,
relevance and significance may be put an end to by invoking the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs. State of
Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] may be invoked even though the
offence under Section 366A I.P.C is not a compoundable
offence.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am
persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner
and respondents 1 and 4 that this is an eminently fit case where
the interests of justice do transcend the interests of mere law
Crl.M.C.No.4096/06 3
and the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to
quash the prosecution against the petitioner for the non-
compoundable offence punishable under Section 366(A) I.P.C.
In coming to this conclusion, I have taken note of the very
peculiar and exceptional circumstances which are available in
this case and it is hence I feel that powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C can be invoked.
5. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is
allowed. S.C.No.1162/2004 pending before the Principal Sub
Court, Thalassery is hereby quashed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.4096/06 4
Crl.M.C.No.4096/06 5
R.BASANT, J
C.R.R.P.No.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF JULY 2006