IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2973 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.654/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- 1. ASHARAF, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, AGED 35 YEARS, PARAMBATH HOUSE, BUSINESS, NEAR KANHIRATTUTHARA GOVT.HOSPITAL, THIRUVALLUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.PONMERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. KUNHABDULLA, S/O.MOIDEEN, BUSINESS, AGED 65 YEARS, PARAMBATH HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.PONMERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. SALAM, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, AGED 39 YEARS, BUSINESS, PARAMBATH HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.PONMERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. NASEEMA, W/O.SALAM, HOUSE-WIFE, AGED 37 YEARS, PARAMBATH HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PONMERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. RAYIHANATH, W/O.KUNHAMMED, HOUSE-WIFE, AGED 26 YEARS, PARAMBATH HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.PONMERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. NABEESA, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, HOUSE-WIFE, AGED 55 YEARS, PARAMBATH HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PONMERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL ......2 -: 2 :- RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. HASEENA, D/O.ABDULLA, HOUSE-WIFE, AGED 28 YEARS, MANDACHERI HOUSE, MUYIPPOTH AMSOM DESOM, P.O.MUYIPPOTH, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. BY ADV. SRI.SUDHEESH.A. FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2973 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.498A IPC. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and other petitioners are the relatives of the 1st petitioner. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint referred to the police under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the 1st respondent and cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted. During the pendency of the proceedings – C.C.No.654/07 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vatakara, parties have settled their disputes and they have come to this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that the disputes have been settled. The marital tie has been put an end to and the spouses are residing separately, it is Crl.M.C. No. 2973 of 2008 -: 2 :- submitted. All outstanding disputes have been settled and the 1st respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. An affidavit filed by the 1st respondent is produced as Annexure-II and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent asserts that the matter has been settled. The 1st respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that there has been a genuine and voluntary settlement of the disputes between the spouses. If legally permissible and possible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings brought to premature termination. 2. 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). I am satisfied that, relying on these decisions, 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 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 Crl.M.C. No. 2973 of 2008 -: 3 :- beyond the law in an appropriate case. Powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C,. are described to be awesome. 3. Considering all the relevant circumstances, including the precedents 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. is enabled by the dictum in the two cases referred above can safely be imported and premature termination of the proceedings can be brought about. 4. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) C.C.No.654/07 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vatakara, against the petitioners herein under Sec.498A IPC is hereby quashed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 2973 of 2008 -: 4 :-