IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2213 of 2008() ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PRAVEEN KULANGARA, W/O PAVITHRAN, KSL BHAVAN, SANKARAGIRI ESTATE, CHENKARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. AJITHA S.R. D/O RAJAN, ETTUKANDATHIL HOUSE, ARYAD NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI ADV.SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2213 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June 2008 O R D E R In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner who is the sole accused in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C prays that the prosecution launched against him by the police may now be quashed. 2. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. Investigation commenced on the basis of a complaint of the second respondent herein. During the pendency of the prosecution before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner and the second respondent have now settled their disputes. Their matrimonial tie has been severed on an application filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The second respondent has no quarrel or dispute with the petitioner herein. She has already settled the disputes and has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. The second respondent has filed an affidavit duly attested in which she confirms that she has settled and compromised the disputes. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the Crl.M.C.No.2213/08 2 respondent who has appeared before this court submit that the matter has been settled. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar and from the materials made available in this Crl.M.C that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the prosecution against the petitioner can be brought to premature termination. 3. But the offence under Section 498A I.P.C is not legally compoundable. The learned counsel for the contestants, in these circumstances, rely on the decisions in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287]. The learned counsel pray that notwithstanding the fact that the offence is not compoundable, extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to ensure the interests of justice. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked as enabled by the decisions referred above and proceedings against the petitioner can be brought to premature termination. Crl.M.C.No.2213/08 3 5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C No.991/2004 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Peermade against the petitioner under Section 498A I.P.C is hereby quashed. 6. No proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C is pending against the petitioner or the sureties, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. Needless to say, if there be any such proceedings pending the same must be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.2213/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.2213/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007