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. 2209 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.303/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR CRIME NO.222/07 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------- JISNA, W/O.GIRISH, AGED 23 YEARS, ERUKKULAM VEETTIL, KAZHANICHUNGAM KAVASERRY AMSOM AND DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED 1 TO 3 AND STATE ------------------------------------- 1. GIRISH , S/O.ARUGUMHAM,AGED 32 YEARS UPPULODE VEEDU, KODUVAYUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD 2. SALOMANI, W/O.ARUMUGHAN, AGED 56 YEARS UPPULODE VEEDU, KODUYUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD 3. GIRIJA, D/O.ARUMUGHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, DO.DO. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. BY ADV. SRI.K.GIRISH FOR R1 TO R5 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. 2209 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a prosecution under Sec.498A read with Sec.34 of the IPC. Respondents 1 to 3 are the three accused in that indictment. Final report has been filed. Cognizance has been taken and the proceedings are pending before the learned Magistrate. 2. At this stage, the petitioner and respondent's 1 to 3 have come before this Court with this petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to apprise this Court of the fact that the disputes between them have been settled harmoniously and amicably. The petitioner is now residing along with respondents 1 to 3 at her matrimonial home. In view of the harmonious settlement and the resumption of cohabitation, parties feel and pray that this prosecution may be brought to premature termination and Crl.M.C. No. 2209 of 2008 -: 2 :- the continuance of the same is without any necessity or purpose. The petitioner has filed an affidavit as Annexure-B. The learned counsel for the petitioner vouches for the fact that the disputes have been settled and the de facto complainant herself has sworn to Annexure-B affidavit and has filed this Crl.M.C. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 have also entered appearance through counsel and they also confirm the settlement. I am satisfied, on the basis of the materials available and the submissions made at the Bar, that the parties are willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and the petitioner has compounded the alleged offences against respondents 1 to 3. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination. The learned Public Prosecutor raises no objection. 4. But the offence under Sec.498A of the IPC is not legally compoundable and, in these circumstances, the learned counsel for the parties 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 this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. must be invoked, in the interests of justice, to prematurely Crl.M.C. No. 2209 of 2008 -: 3 :- terminate the unnecessary continuance of the prosecution against respondents 1 to 3. 5. In this result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) C.C.No.303/07 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Alathur, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge