IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4671 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.323/08 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- NARAYANAN, S/O AMBUNHI, THOTTUMPURAM, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PUSHPAVALLI, D/O POKKAN, PULLIKKARA, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR ADV. SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4671 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner and the 2nd respondent are spouses. They have remained in matrimony from 28.06.1995 and two children, aged 12 and 7 years are born in the wedlock. Crime No.323 of 2008 of Nileshwar Police Station was registered initially under Section 324 I.P.C on the basis of the complaint of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner herein had attacked her with a dangerous weapon and caused simple injury. The F.I.R was registered. Investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, allegation under Section 452 I.P.C has also been raised against the petitioner herein. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed yet. 2. At this juncture the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have come before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that all disputes between them have been settled and the 2nd respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner herein. Notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Section 452 I.P.C is not compoundable, the composition Crl.M.C. No.4671 of 2008 2 may be accepted and premature termination of the proceedings against the petitioner may be effected by invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 (3) KLT 19], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769 (SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)], it is submitted. 3. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel. Agreement between the parties have been produced as Annexure-II, which shows that they have settled all their outstanding disputes and have decided to get the matrimonial relationship severed by filing appropriate application before the court concerned. The 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit duly attested by counsel, in which he confirms that the disputes have been settled and the offences alleged compounded. 4. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in the 3 decisions referred above can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the crime registered against the petitioner herein. Crl.M.C. No.4671 of 2008 3 5. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; b) Crime No.323 of 2008 pending before the Nileshwar Police Station against the petitioner, in which the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-