IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 605 of 2001 ----------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.25/1999 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR C.C.NO.369/1995 OF J.F.C.M-II, ALUVA REVN. PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. NADURSHA, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, NADACKAPARAMBIL VEEDU, MAMBRA KARA, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE. 2. NOUHARSHA, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, NADACKAPARAMBIL VEEDU, MAMBRA KARA, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE. 3. NABEESA, W/O.KOYAKUTTY, NADACKAPARAMBIL VEEDU, MAMBRA KARA, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.JOHNY RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL.2 NAGI.A.A, D/O.ABDUL AZSIS, AGED 36 YEARS, VALLIAPARAMBIL, MALIAKKAL, SOUTH ADAVASSERY, PARAVOOR TALUK, KUNUKARA VILLAGE. (Addl.2nd respondent is impleaded as per order dated 16.06.09 in Crl.M.Appl.No.5320 of 2009) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU ADV. SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH FOR ADDL.R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P No.605 of 2001 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 O R D E R C.M.Appl.5320 of 2009 Heard. Allowed. The petitioner, the defacto complainant is permitted to come on record as the additional 2nd respondent. Crl.R.P.No.605 of 2001 This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 498 A r/w 34 I..P.C. Proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a complaint of the additional 2nd respondent herein, who is the wife of petitioner No.1. Petitioners are the husband (1st petitioner), brother in law (2nd petitioner) and mother in law (3rd petitioner) of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. During the pendency of this revision petition parties appear to have settled all their disputes and the defacto complainant has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners. She has appeared before this Court through counsel and has got herself impleaded as additional 2nd respondent. She along with the petitioners herein has filed an application for composition Crl.R.P No.605 of 2001 2 duly signed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. The application is duly counter signed by the respective counsel. 2. Before me both the counsel submit that parties have settled their disputes and the spouses have resumed harmonious cohabitation. It would be unnecessary, unjust and oppressive if the impugned conviction and sentence were permitted to remain. The learned counsel for both sides relied on the decisions in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386], 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)] to contend that the composition of the offence by the parties may be accepted and further proceedings may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. It is by now trite that such a composition of an offence under Section 498 A I.P.C can certainly be accepted when the spouses have settled their disputes and harmonious cohabitation has been resumed. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the prayer made by the petitioners and the additional 2nd respondent can be accepted. Crl.R.P No.605 of 2001 3 4. In the result: a) This revision petition is allowed; b) The impugned concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed under Section 498 A r/w 34 I.P.C against the petitioners/accused is hereby quashed. The petitioners are set at liberty. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-