IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2007 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1670 of 2007() ------------------------- LP.1/2006 (C.C.NO.697/2003) of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- SURESHKUMAR, SURESHBHAVAN, PALLIKKAL, NOORANAD, ANAYADI. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR SRI.K.G.RENGANATH RESPONDENTS: FIRST INFORMANT AND COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- 1. BEENA.B.S., MURUPPEL PUTHEN VEEDU, MARUTHIMOOD, ELAMANOOR, ENADIMANGALAM VILLAG. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.1670 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2007 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 498 A I.P.C. The 1st respondent is the defacto complainant. She had filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate. The same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, final report was filed only against the petitioner, even though in the complaint parents of the petitioner were also shown as accused. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The case is now pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adoor. Consequent to the non appearance of the petitioner, the case has been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases. The case has been pending from the year 2003 before the learned Magistrate. 2. The petitioner along with the 1st respondent has now come before this Court to inform the Court that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The spouses have resumed co-habitation, it is submitted. In view of the harmonious settlement, the 1st respondent does not want to continue with the prosecution. The continuance of the prosecution is remaining an unnecessary irritant in the relationship between the parties. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner and the 1st respondent make a joint request that the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed. Crl.M.C.No.1670 of 2007 2 3. The respondent has entered appearance before this Court through counsel. She has filed an affidavit to confirm that the matter has been settled between the parties. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent vouches for the signature of the respondent in the affidavit. 4. I am satisfied from the averments made in the petition and the submissions made at the Bar as also from the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that the parties have settled their disputes harmoniously and have resumed co-habitation. If legally permissible, the composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination. 5. 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 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. Crl.M.C.No.1670 of 2007 3 6. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the said dictum can be invoked and the proceedings brought to premature termination. 7. In the result, this Crl.M.C is, allowed. L.P.No.1 of 2006, which arose from C.C.No.697 of 2003, against the petitioner pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adoor, is hereby quashed. Needless to say, the proceedings, if any, initiated and pending under Section 446 Cr.P.C must be disposed of in accordance with law. Issue copy of the order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-