IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3516 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.445/08 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- PULIKKADAN RAVI, S/O.AMBU MANIYANI, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEKARA, KEEKAN VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENTS(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHOBHANA, D/O.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT PULLUR THATTUMMAL, PULLUR VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB ADV. SRI.R.VINU RAJ FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3516 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution under Section 498 A I.P.C. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. Investigation is pending. Final report has not been filed yet. 2. At this stage, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have come to this Court through their counsel to apprise this Court of the fact that the dispute between them have been settled amicably and that the 2nd respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner herein. They have decided to terminate the marital tie by mutual consent. They have entered into Annexure-II agreement. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Crl.M.C. No.3516 of 2008 2 3. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The counsel confirms that the matter has been settled as per Annexure-II agreement. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor raises no objection against the quashing of proceedings. 4. I am satisfied that there has been genuine and voluntary settlement of the dispute between parties and the 2nd respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner herein. If legally possible and permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and premature termination of the proceedings can be brought about. 5. But the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C is not legally compoundable. Counsel in these circumstances rightly place reliance on the decision in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386]. That decision is authority for the proposition that the powers under Section Crl.M.C. No.3516 of 2008 3 482 Cr.P.C are wide and sweeping and can be pressed into service when the interests of justice so demand. The interests of justice, it is held, may at times transcend the interests of mere law and in such circumstances, the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be reckoned as a fetter on the powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the said dictum can be invoked and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination. 7. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is, allowed; ii) Crime No.445 of 2008, registered at the Hosdurg Police Station against the petitioner under Section 498 A I.P.C at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein, is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-