IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3203 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.884/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM CRIME NO.29 OF 2008 OF VELLOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 3 ------------------------------ 1. REGI K.PAUL, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.S.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT KAPPIKKARA HOUSE, POTHUVA KARA, MULAKKULAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 2. K.T.PAILY, AGED 85 YEARS, S/O.THOMMAN, RESIDING AT KAPPIKKARA HOUSE, POTHUVA KARA, MULAKKULAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 3. CHINNAMMA PAILY, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.PAILLY, RESIDING AT KAPPIKKARA HOUSE, POTHUVA KARA, MULAKKULAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR VELLOOR POLICE STATION, IN CRIME NO.29/2008. 2. SEENA MARKOSE, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.MARKOSE, RESIDING AT ALLAKUZHA HOUSE, PULINTHANAM, ENANELLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI ADV. SRI.PRASAD M.BABY FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3203 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are the husband and parents in law of the defacto complainant, ie. the 2nd respondent herein. They face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498 A r/w 34 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The case is now pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom as C.C.No.200 of 2008. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have settled their disputes. Annexure-A4 has been executed between the parties. The petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent are represented by counsel and it is reported that the disputes have been settled and the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners has been compounded by the defacto complainant/the 2nd respondent herein. 3. Both the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are represented by counsel. A copy of the agreement entered into between them has been produced as Annexure-A4. It is reported Crl.M.C. No.3203 of 2008 2 that the matter has been settled between the parties. They have agreed upon a divorce. The terms of the said agreement are being put into practice. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the prosecution against the petitioners may be directed to be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the decision in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386]. 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor does not raise any objections. 5. I am satisfied from the averments made in the petition and the submissions made at the Bar as also from Annexure-A4 agreement entered into between the parties that the parties have settled their disputes and have decided to divorce. If legally permissible, the composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination. 6. Offence under Section 498 A I.P.C is not legally compoundable. Counsel in these circumstances rightly place reliance on the decision in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386]. 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 Crl.M.C. No.3203 of 2008 3 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. 7. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the said dictum can be invoked and the proceedings brought to premature termination. 8. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is, allowed; ii) C.C.No.200 of 2008, against the petitioner pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom, is hereby quashed. 9. Needless to say, the proceedings, if any, initiated and pending against the petitioners under Section 446 Cr.P.C must be disposed of in accordance with law. Sd/- (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- /true copy/ P.A to Judge