IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2451 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 83/06 OF KASARGOD POLICE STATION CC.294/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONERS/A1 & A3: ------------ 1. SYED MUHAMMED KAIRULLA AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. HAJI SYED SYFULLA MALLAR (H) KAPU, (PO) MALLAR, UDUPI DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE 2. SYED MUHAMMED HARIF AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. HAJI SYED SYFULLA MALLAR (H) KAPU, (PO) MALLAR, UDUPI DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. NILOFAR BANU,AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.NISAR AHAMMED HALIMA MANZIL, BAPPAITHOTTY, P.O. UPPALA 671 322 KASARAGOD DISTRICT R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2451 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners, along with the co-accused, faced indictment in a prosecution alleging offences inter alia, under Section 498A r/w. 34 I.P.C. The petitioners are accused 1 and 3. They are the husband of the defacto complainant and her brother- in-law respectively. The co-accused i.e. accused 2 and 4, faced trial. They were found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the petitioners was split up and the same is pending as C.C. 294 of 2008 before the C.J.M., Kasargode. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners have settled their disputes with the second respondent. Divorce has been effected. All outstanding disputes between them have been settled. The second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. The parties having harmoniously settled all their disputes and they having started separate residence after settlement of their disputes, they have come Crl.M.C.No. 2451 of 2008 2 before this court through their counsel to submit that the surviving prosecution against them may be quashed invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners and the second respondent are represented by counsel. Though there was some initial controversy as to whether the disputes have finally been settled, now it is submitted at the Bar by both counsel that the parties have settled their disputes and that Annex.A2 agreement and Annex.A3 receipt have been executed by the second respondent. Counsel for the second respondent submits that the second respondent has willingly and voluntarily settled all her disputes with the petitioners and she has compounded the offences allegedly committed by them. 3. I am satisfied from the totality of circumstances that there has been a genuine and voluntary settlement of the disputes and that the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination. Crl.M.C.No. 2451 of 2008 3 5. The offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is not legally compoundable and the composition cannot be accepted under Section 320 Cr.P.C. But the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386). The said decision is authority for the proposition that at times the interests of justice may 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 sweeping powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to act in aid of justice. 6. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the help of the dictum in B.S. Joshi can be invoked and the proceedings against the petitioners brought to premature termination. 7. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.C. No. 294 of 2008, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargode against the petitioners is hereby quashed. Crl.M.C.No. 2451 of 2008 4 c) Proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioners shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm