IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3195 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.238/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------ SHANAVAS, S/O.ABBOBACKER, KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL, MOONAM PEEDIKA, EZHOM AMSOM DESAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTATION BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. RASHEEDA, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.ARAYAKIL ASHRAF, MUKRI ABASINTAVIDA HOUSE, THALAYIL, KUNHIMANAGALM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3195 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the accused and he faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. The second respondent, his wife, is the de facto complainant in that crime. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The matter is pending before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur as C.C.No.238/05. During the pendency of the proceedings, the spouses appear to have settled their disputes. They have entered into Annexure 2 agreement, it is submitted. The marital tie has been dissolved. They are residing separately without any dispute. The second respondent/ de facto complainant has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner and the second respondent who have appeared through their counsel before this court together pray that the prosecution against the petitioner which has become irrelevant, unnecessary and redundant may be quashed invoking the Crl.M.C.No.3195/08 2 extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386]. 2. The offence under Section 498A I.P.C is not legally compoundable. But it is now trite that as enabled by the decision in B.S.Joshi (Supra), such composition can be taken note of to quash the proceedings invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. I am satisfied that there has been a genuine, voluntary and bona fide settlement. I am satisfied that the prayer in this petition can be allowed. The second respondent has entered appearance through Adv.Sri.Jacob Sebastian. The learned counsel for the second respondent confirms that the matter has been harmoniously settled between the parties. 3. In the result, a) This petition is allowed. b) C.C.No.238/2005 before the learned J.F.C.M, Payyannur is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioner or their sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3195/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.3195/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008