IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1928 Crl.MC.No. 444 of 2007() ------------------------ CC.384/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: A4: --------------- ARSHAD, S/O. BEDAR SAMAN, THODIVARATHU VEEDU, MOOTHALA, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.PRABHU VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.LAKSHMI RENJITH RESPONDENTS: STATE: ------------------- 1. REEZA, D/O. SUBAIDA BEEVI, NIZA MANZIL, THEMPRAKONAM, OORUPOIKA DESOM, EDAKKODU VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB R1 BY ADV. SRI.M. ALTHAF THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO. 444 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007 ORDER The petitioner is the 4th accused in a prosecution under Secs.498A and 109 of the IPC. Altogether, there were four accused persons. Proceedings against all the other three have come to an end. Only the prosecution against the petitioner i.e., the 4th accused is now pending. The same is pending as C.C.No.384/98. Consequent to the non-availability of the petitioner, the case against him has been transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases and the same was re-numbered as L.P.No.55/05. The prosecution has been initiated on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent/ complainant. 2. The petitioner/the 4th accused and the respondent/ complainant, through their counsel, pray that powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/the 4th accused. The matter has been settled between the parties. The 1st respondent/complainant has compounded the offence CRL.M.C.NO. 444 OF 2007 -: 2 :- allegedly committed by the petitioner. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent. It is submitted that the spouses have settled their disputes. The petitioner is employed abroad. He is returning to his native place. They shall resume cohabitation after his return, it is submitted. 3. The petitioner and the 1st respondent have filed a joint application for composition duly signed by them. Copy of the agreement between them is also produced as Annexure-B. 4. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar, the joint statement filed by them and Annexure-B that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and the composition can be accepted, if the same is legally acceptable. 5. The offence under Sec.498A of the IPC is not compoundable under law. But the learned counsel points out that in view of the dictum in B.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386), notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Sec.498A of the IPC is not compoundable, this Court may be pleased to invoke the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the nature of the offence and the nature of the admitted settlement and composition, I am satisfied that the said request can be accepted. This is an eminently fit case where the CRL.M.C.NO. 444 OF 2007 -: 3 :- interests of justice do appear to transcend the interests of mere law. The joint request made by the spouses who want to resume harmonious cohabitation is , according to me, sufficient to justify the invocation of the powers under Sec.482 of the IPC. 6. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) L.P.No.55/05 (C.C.No.384/98) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Attingal, is hereby quashed. Needless to say that the proceedings under Sec.446 of the Cr.P.C., if any, pending shall be disposed of in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge