IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4070 of 2008() -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.636/2008 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. NIZARUDEEN, S/O.SAINULABDEEN, VENGAVILA VEEDU, CHERUKULAM P.O. CHUNDOO, ITTIVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. REMLA BEEVI, VENGAVILA VEEDU, CHERUKULAM P.O., CHUNDOO, ITTIVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SABEENA BEEVI, VENGAVILA VEEDU, CHERUKULAM P.O., CHUNDOO, ITTIVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODAKKAL POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SAJEENA BEEVI, D/O.AREEFA BEEVI, VENGAVILA VEEDU, CHERUKULAM P.O., CHUNDOO, ITTIVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT FROM TAJ MANZIL, ERAM, THADIKKADU P.O., ANCHAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB - R1 ADV. SRI.V.ANIL FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4070 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Sec.498A read with Sec.34 IPC. That crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint fled by the 2nd respondent before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. The crime has been registered as Crime No.636/08 of the Kadakkal Police Station. Investigation is in progress. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant/2nd respondent herein. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed so far, it is submitted. 2. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent have now Crl.M.C. No.4070 of 2008 -: 2 :- appeared before this Court through their counsel to apprise this Court of the fact that the parties have settled all their disputes. The 2nd respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. The spouses after settling their disputes have resumed harmonious cohabitation. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent are represented by their counsel and they have filed a joint application for composition duly signed by the parties and counter signed by their respective counsel. 3. I am satisfied from the submission made at the Bar as also the averments in this Crl.M.C. as also the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and the joint application for composition filed by the parties that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and the spouses have resumed cohabitation. If legally permissible and possible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination. 4. 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 decision of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386). I am satisfied that, relying on the decision, powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the instant case where such invocation is found to be eminently Crl.M.C. No.4070 of 2008 -: 3 :- justified. The interests of justice may at times transcend the interests of mere law. The powers reserved under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked by this Court to do justice beyond the law in an appropriate case. Powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C,. are described to be awesome. 5. Considering all the relevant circumstances, including the precedent referred above, I am persuaded to agree that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in the case referred above can safely be invoked and premature termination of the proceedings can be brought about. 6. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application. 7. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) CrimeNo.636/08 of the Kadakkal Police Station against the petitioners in which the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant and all further proceedings taken in pursuance of the said crime is hereby quashed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No.4070 of 2008 -: 4 :-