IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2123 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.560/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ MOHAMMED KUNHI.P.A, AGED 32, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, R/AT MUREAR HOUSE, THALANGARA, MALIKDEENAR NAGAR, KUNCHATHUR (P.O), KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SABANA, AGED 24, D/O.MOHAMMED, KUNNARIATH HOUSE, KEKKEPPURAM, THALANGARA (P.O), KASARAGOD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. SMT.R.DYANA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2123 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent. He along with his mother and sister faced indictment in a prosecution under Section 498 A I.P.C. As he was absconding, the case against him was split up. His mother and sister faced the trial. They have been found not guilty and acquitted already. The case against the petitioner has been re-filed. The same is pending before the learned Magistrate. 2. At this stage, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have come before this Court with a prayer that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked and the proceedings against the petitioner pending now may be quashed. 3. What is the reason ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been settled. An affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent to confirm that such dispute has been settled and compromised. All the offences alleged have been compounded. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled the disputes between them and the 2nd respondent has compounded the Crl.M.C. No.2123 of 2008 2 offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be quashed. 4. But the offence punishable under Section 498 A I.P.C is not legally compoundable. The learned counsel in these circumstances place reliance on the decisions in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386] and Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2208 AIR SCW 2287]. They submit that no earthly purpose will be achieved by the continuance of the prosecution. That decision is authority for the proposition that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are wide and sweeping and can be pressed into service when the interests of justice so demand. The interests of justice, it is held, may at times transcend the interests of mere law and in such circumstances, the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be reckoned as a fetter on the powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the said dictum can be invoked and the proceedings brought to premature termination. 6. In the result, this Crl.M.C is, allowed. L.P.No.215 of 2007, which arose from C.C.No.7867 of 2007, against the Crl.M.C. No.2123 of 2008 3 petitioner pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargode, is hereby quashed. Needless to say, the proceedings, if any, initiated and pending under Section 446 Cr.P.C must be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-