IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2672 of 2008() ------------------------- CP.44/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SANALKUMAR.S., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.G.SUNDARESAN, RESIDING AT SUNIL BHAVAN, KAKKODU, KADDPDU P.O., PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA , REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULANUR POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.130/2006) REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BINDU.M, W/O.SANALKUMAR., SUNIL BHAVAN, KAKKODU, KADDODU P.O., PUNALUR, KOALLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) FOR R2 SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) FOR ADDL.R3 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2672 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner, a young man aged about 27 years, faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had sexual intercourse with the victim, a girl aged about 17 years, at a time when she was allegedly aged about 15 years only. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. That crime was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the alleged victim/girl. 2. The petitioner has now come before this Court along with the alleged victim, who has been arrayed as the second respondent, and her guardian, who has been arrayed as additional third respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through a counsel. The counsel submit and affidavits/statements to that effect have been filed by respondents 2 and 3 that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled all Crl.M.C.No. 2672 of 2008 2 the disputes between them. It was a case of love between the petitioner and the second respondent. They had agreed to enter matrimony. Sexual intercourse was on the promise that such marriage shall be performed. On the date of the alleged intercourse, at any rate, the girl was above the age of consent, it is submitted. The petitioner and the second respondent have got married in accordance with law. They are harmoniously cohabiting now. The father of the second respondent, Addl. third respondent, has also settled all his disputes with the petitioner. In these circumstances both counsel submit that continuance of the prosecution will be unnecessary and no purpose will be served except unnecessary vexation for the parties. Both counsel in these circumstances submit that invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in B.S. Joshi v. State of Karyana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287) the prosecution pending against the petitioner may be brought to premature termination. Failure to do so will certainly result to miscarriage of justice, it is submitted. Crl.M.C.No. 2672 of 2008 3 3. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The offence alleged is not a compoundable offence. But the decisions referred above are authority for the proposition that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can in an appropriate case be invoked even when the offence is not compoundable. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have often been described to be awesome. They can in an appropriate case be invoked to serve the interests of justice. The interests of justice, it is now trite, may transcend the interests of mere law in an appropriate case. I take note of the fact that the petitioner and the second respondent have entered valid matrimony. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where such powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to bring to premature termination of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the offences alleged are not compoundable. 4. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who submits that the State, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, does not want to raise any objection against premature termination of the proceedings against the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No. 2672 of 2008 4 5. This Crl.M.C. is in these circumstances allowed. C.P. 44 of 2008 pending before the J.F.M.C.-III, Punalur against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm