High Court Kerala High Court

V.V.Rajendran @ Sunil vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2007

Kerala High Court
V.V.Rajendran @ Sunil vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3356 of 2007()


1. V.V.RAJENDRAN @ SUNIL, AGED 33 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SARASWATHI, AGED 61 YEARS,
3. VISWAKUMARI, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.RAVI,
4. SREEVIDYA.V.V., AGED 36 YEARS,

                        Vs



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

2. MAHESWARIAMMA @ MEERA, AGED 27 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.C.S.SHEEJA

                For Respondent  :SRI.A.C.DEVY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :05/11/2007

 O R D E R
                          R.BASANT, J.
                       ----------------------
                    Crl.M.C.No.3356 of 2007
                   ----------------------------------------
            Dated this the 5th day of November 2007

                              O R D E R

The petitioners are the husband of the de facto complainant

and his relatives. The de facto complainant is the second

respondent herein. The second respondent had filed a private

complaint. The same was referred to the police under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation was conducted by the police and

after such investigation, final report was filed alleging

commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A read

with 34 I.P.C against all the four petitioners. Cognizance has

been taken by the learned Magistrate and the case is now

pending before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Kunnamkulam as C.C.No.368/07. The petitioners and the second

respondent have come to this court through their counsel. It is

reported to the court that all the disputes between the

petitioners and the second respondent have been settled

amicably. The first petitioner and the second respondent-

spouses have now resumed harmonious co-habitation. The

second respondent has compounded the offence allegedly

committed by the petitioners.

Crl.M.C.No.3356/07 2

2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no

objection against the acceptance of the composition.

3. The learned counsel for the second respondent,

Sri.A.C.Devy confirms that the matter has been settled between

the parties and the second respondent, his client, has

compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners

1 to 4. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the parties

have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and the

spouses have now resumed co-habitation. I am satisfied

from the submissions made at the Bar and the joint statement

filed by the rival contestants duly countersigned by their

respective counsel that the dispute have been settled and the

first respondent has compounded the offence allegedly

committed by the petitioners. If legally permissible, I am

satisfied that the composition can be accepted and premature

termination of the proceedings can be brought about.

4. But the offence under Section 498A I.P.C is not legally

compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel,

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

Crl.M.C.No.3356/07 3

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 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

petitioners brought to premature termination.

5. I am not insisting on a joint application between the

parties in the light of the assertion of the learned counsel for the

second respondent that the parties have settled the disputes and

have resumed harmonious co-habitation.

6. In the result, this petition is allowed. C.C No.368/07

pending before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Kunnamkulam against the petitioners under Section 498A read

with 34 I.P.C is hereby quashed.




                                               (R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr

      // True Copy//       PA to Judge

Crl.M.C.No.3356/07    4

Crl.M.C.No.3356/07    5

       R.BASANT, J.




         CRL.M.CNo.




            ORDER




21ST DAY OF MAY2007