IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2223 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.632/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- 1. SALEEM, S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 42, KONATH VEETTIL, GOTHURUTH, CHENTHAMANGALAM, PARUR. 2. MARY, W/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 70, KONATH VEETTIL, GOTHURUTH, CHENTHAMANGALAM, PARUR. 3. ANTONY, S/O.SHAVARO, AGED 58, PUTHENPURAKKAL, GOTHURUTHU, RESIDING AT KONATH VEETTIL, GOTHURUTH, CHENTHAMANGALAM, PARUR. 4. LAILA, W/O.ANTONY, AGED 48, PUTHANPURACKAL, GOTHURUTH, RESIDING AT KONATH VEETTIL, GOTHURUTH, CHENTHAMANGALAM, PARUR. 5. MICHAL, S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 46, KONATHVEETTIL, GOTHURUTH, CHENTHAMANGALAM, PARUR. 6. TREESA MICHAL, W/O.MICHAL, AGED 45, KONATH VEETTIL, GOTHURUTH, CHENTHAMANGALAM, PARUR. BY ADV. SMT.NAINA RAJI NAIR SRI.M.J.JOHNSON RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. BISHI, W/O.SALEEM, AGED 35, KONATH VEETTIL, GOTHURUTH, CHENTHAMANGALAM, PARUR, RESIDING AT POOVATHANI VEETIL, PUTHENVELIKKARA, MANACHERI KUNNU, PARAVOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI SRI.AYPE JOSEPH FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2223 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioners herein are the accused in a prosecution alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 498 A I.P.C. 1st petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent/complainant. The other petitioners are the relatives of the 1st petitioner. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant/1st respondent. All the accused have appeared before the learned Magistrate, it is submitted. Trial has not commenced. 2. The petitioners and the 1st respondent have now appeared before this Court through their counsel to submit before this Court that the disputes between them have all been settled and compromised harmoniously. An application for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 10 A of the Divorce Act has already been filed. The 1st respondent/claimant does not, in these circumstances, want to further prosecute the complaint filed by her against the petitioners. An amount of Rs.1.9 lakhs has been agreed to be paid to the 1st respondent in full settlement of the disputes between the parties and the same has already Crl.M.C. No.2223 of 2008 2 been deposited before the Family Court, it is submitted. The same is to be released to the 1st respondent after termination of all proceedings. 3. The petitioners as well as the 1st respondent through their counsel submit that there is no relevance or meaning in the continuation of the proceedings now and it is prayed that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings under Section 498 A I.P.C. 4. I am satisfied from the submissions made by the counsel at the Bar as also from the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent before this Court today, a copy of which is made available for my perusal, that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and that the prosecution against the petitioners can be brought to premature termination if the same be legally permissible. The offence under Section 498 A I.P.C is not legally compoundable. Counsel in these circumstances rightly place reliance on the decisions in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386] and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287] and pray that in the light of the settlement, the proceedings may be brought to termination invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No.2223 of 2008 3 5. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that this is an eminently fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can and ought to be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary continuance of the prosecution against the petitioners. 7. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is, allowed; b) C.C.No.632 of 2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, North Parur, is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-