IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2109 of 2008() ------------------------- C.C.720/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SABIRA, 25 YEARS, D/O.IBRAHIM, KACHERIPADI, VENGARA AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------ 1. ISMAIL, S/O.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, CHOZHIMADATHIL, KACHERIPADI, VENGARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2109 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner – a woman, is the de facto complainant in a prosecution under Sec.498A of the IPC. The 1st respondent is the 1st accused and he was the husband of the petitioner. There were altogether 4 accused persons. Accused 2 to 4, who are relatives of the 1st accused, have already faced trial. They have been found not guilty and acquitted already. The 1st accused was not available for trial and the case against him has hence split up. 2. The petitioner/the de facto complainant has come before this Court to report to this Court that the dispute between her and the 1st respondent have all been settled vide Annexure-A agreement. Annexure-B is the judgment of acquittal of the co-accused. The learned counsel for the Crl.M.C. No. 2109 of 2008 -: 2 :- petitioner submits that as part of the deal of the petitioner has settled, compromised and compounded the offences alleged against the 1st respondent herein also. Continuance of the prosecution affects the interests of the 1st respondent as also prejudices the petitioner. The petitioner has, in these circumstances, come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the surviving proceedings against the 1st respondent/1st accused. Parties are divorced now. 3. I am satisfied that the petitioner has willingly and voluntarily settled, compromised and compounded the offences alleged against the 1st respondent. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings brought to premature termination. 4. The offence under Sec.498A of the IPC is not legally compoundable. But the learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, places reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287). The rationale underlying the said decisions is that the interests of justice may at times transcend the interests of mere law and in such exceptional cases powers under Sec.482 Crl.M.C. No. 2109 of 2008 -: 3 :- of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked and Sec.320 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be a fetter to the invocation of such power. 5. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where such powers can be invoked at the instance of the petitioner/the de facto complainant to bring to premature termination the proceedings against the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no proceedings under Sec.446 are pending before the learned Magistrate against the 1st respondent or his sureties. 6. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) C.C.No.720/07 against the 1st respondent pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Malappuram, is hereby quashed. (c) Proceedings, if any, under Sec.446 against the 1st respondent or his sureties can, of course, continue. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 2109 of 2008 -: 4 :-