IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3362 of 2008 --------------------------------- (AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 429/07 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS, KOTHAMANGALAM). ..................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. PREETH M. KURIAKOSE, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. KURIAKOSE, MALEKANDATHIL HOUSE, KADAVOOR.P.O., PUNNAMATTOM, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. KURIAKOSE, AGED 77 YEARS, MALEKANDATHIL HOUSE, KADAVOOR.P.O., PUNNAMATTOM, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. PRAJEETHA, W/O. KURIAKOSE, AGED, 76 YEARS, MALEKANDATHIL HOUSE, KADAVOOR.P.O., PUNNAMATTOM, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED. RESPONDENTS/ STATE/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SMITHA K. ANTONY, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. ANTONY, KAVUMPURATH HOUSE, VARAPPETTY.P.O., ELANGAVAM, KOTHAMANGALAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM FOR R1, ADV. SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3362 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w. 34 I.P.C. They are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the defacto complainant, who is arrayed as the second respondent in this case. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after investigation. That crime was registered on the basis of the complaint of the second respondent herein before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police for investigation. Calender case has been registered. During the pendency of the calender case the parties have settled their disputes. They have decided to terminate the matrimonial tie. 2. The petitioners, along with the second respondent, have come before this Court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes amicably during the pendency Crl.M.C.No. 3362 of 2008 2 of the prosecution. The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel and filed an affidavit duly attested by her counsel. Counsel for the second respondent vouches for the fact that the second respondent has filed the affidavit and she has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. She does not, in these circumstances, want to further prosecute the petitioners. 2. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar and from the pleadings that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and that the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. If legally possible and permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination. 3. The offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is not legally compoundable and the composition cannot be accepted under Section 320 Cr.P.C. But the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386). The said decision is authority for the proposition that at times the interests of justice may transcend the interests of mere law and in such circumstances the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be Crl.M.C.No. 3362 of 2008 3 reckoned as a fetter on the sweeping powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to act in aid of justice. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the help of the dictum in B.S. Joshi can be invoked and the proceedings against the petitioners brought to premature termination. 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.C. No. 429 of 2007, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam against the petitioners is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioners and the sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm