IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2269 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.303/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------- RONSY K.P.@ ASWATHY 20 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF PANKAJAKSHAN, RESIDING AT ASWATHI BHAVAN, KUDIKULAM PARAVUR, KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. SETHU NATHAPANICKER, S/O.VISWANATHA PANICKER, THENGUVILA VEEDU, KOTTATHALA PUTHOOR, KKOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.JAI GEORGE FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2269 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution under Section 498 A IPC. Crime was registered, investigation was conducted and final report was filed. The case against the co- accused, i.e., father of the 1st respondent/1st accused, was proceeded. He was found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the 1st respondent/1st accused was split up and proceedings against him is continuing as CC No.1037/04 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court –I, Kottarakkara. It is at this stage that the petitioner/defacto complainant has come before this Court with a prayer that the surviving prosecution against the 1st respondent may be quashed. All outstanding disputes have been settled. Parties have already agreed to dissolve the relationship. In these circumstances, there is no necessity of continuing with the proceedings, submits the counsel on behalf of the petitioner/defacto complainant. 2. The 1st respondent has not entered appearance. The learned Prosecutor was directed to take instructions. The learned Crl.M.C. No. 2269 OF 2008 2 Prosecutor after taking instructions confirms that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and the petitioner has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the 1st respondent. I am satisfied from the facts and circumstances of this case that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and that if legally permissible and possible, composition can be accepted and further proceedings can be quashed. The offences under Section 498 A IPC is not legally compoundable. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, places reliance on the decisions in B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] and Madam Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287]. 3. I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this Case that it is an eminently fit case where notwithstanding the fact that the offences are not compoundable, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked as enabled by the decisions referred above and the unnecessary further continuation of the prosecution can be put to an end. The marital tie has already been dissolved by a decree of the Court. Crl.M.C. No. 2269 OF 2008 3 In the result: i. This petition is allowed. ii. CC No.1037/04 pending against the 1st respondent before the JFMC-I, Kottarakkara is hereby quashed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 2269 OF 2008 4 Crl.M.C. No. 2269 OF 2008 5