IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3932 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 369/06 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION CC.636/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MAHESH, S/O. DEVASIA, PLAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, POTTA 2. DEVASIA, S/O. VARGHESE, PALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, POTTA. 3. ROSAMMA DEVASIA, PA\LAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, POTTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): DEFACATO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- 1. STATE REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, CHALAKUTY. 2. DOLLY, D/O. P.M.PAUL, PELLISSARY HOUSE, AMMADAM P.O., THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH FOR R2 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3932 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 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. The second respondent herein is the defacto complaint. She is the wife of the first petitioner and the daughter-in-law of petitioners 2 and 3. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The criminal prosecution is pending before the J.F.M.C. Chalakkudy as C.C. 636 of 2007. 2. The petitioners along with the second respondent have come before this Court now to apprise this court of the fact that the disputes between them have been settled amicably and that the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. The parties having settled all their disputes and they having started separate residence after settlement of their disputes, they have come before this court Crl.M.C.No. 3932 of 2008 2 through their counsel to submit that the surviving prosecution against them may be quashed invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. I am satisfied from the totality of circumstances that there has been a genuine and voluntary settlement of the disputes and that the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination. 5. 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 reckoned as a fetter on the sweeping powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to act in aid of justice. Crl.M.C.No. 3932 of 2008 3 6. 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. 7. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.C. No. 636 of 2007, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy against the petitioners, wherein the second respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed. c) Proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm