IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2170 of 2008() (CRIME NO. 354/08 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION.) PETITIONER: ------------ AMBIKA.C, D/O. JANARDHANAN, AGED 24 YEARS, CHEPPANDEVEDA HOUSE, TEMPLE GATE P.O.,THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M.DIVAKARAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, P.G.TEACHER, CENTRAL SCHOOL, CALICUT. 2. M.SAKUNTHALA, W/O. MADHAVAN, MANNATH HOUSE, P.O. THEKKODI. 3. M.JANAKI, D/O.MADHAVAN, MANNATH HOUSE, P.O. THEKKODI. 4. M.VASANTHA, D/O.MADHAVAN, MANNATH HOUSE, P.O. THEKKODI. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THALASSERY POLICE STATION. 6. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R5 & R6 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2170 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 498 A IPC. Respondents 1 to 4 in this Crl.M.C are her husband and relatives of the husband. Investigation is in progress. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner/defacto complainant and the respondents 1 to 4 have now appeared before this Court through their respective counsel. They submit that all the disputes have been settled harmoniously and the spouses have now resumed cohabitation. In these circumstances the petitioner/defacto complainant does not want to further prosecute her grievance against respondents 1 to 4/accused. In these circumstances, the defacto complainant prays, and the respondents endorse that request, that the crime registered against respondents 1 to 4 may be quashed. In as Crl.M.C. No. 2170 OF 2008 2 much as the parties have agreed to resume cohabitation harmoniously, continuance of this prosecution would result in great prejudice and hardship to the parties. Such prejudice and hardship may be avoided and the parties may be permitted to resolve their dispute and resume harmonious cohabitation. 3. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the matter has been settled between the parties. A joint statement to that effect has been filed by the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 4. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar by the counsel for the rival contestants and the documents filed before the Court by the parties have settled their dispute and that the petitioner herein has compounded the offences allegedly committed by respondents 1 to 4/accused. The learned Prosecutor expresses some reservations on the ground that the settlement has been agreed on the promise of resumption of cohabitation and not on the basis of actual resumption of cohabitation. When queried the learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant submits that the disputes have been settled and resumption of cohabitation Crl.M.C. No. 2170 OF 2008 3 shall take place shortly as undertaken by the 1st respondent. Counsel for the 1st respondent also makes this undertaking before the Court, on behalf of the 1st respondent. 4. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and the petitioner has compounded the offences allegedly committed by respondents 1 to 4/accused. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the premature termination of the proceedings can be brought also. 5. But the offence under Section 498 A IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Counsel in these circumstances, rightly relied on the decisions in B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] and Madam Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287]. I am satisfied that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, accepting the agreement for future harmonious cohabitation, the request can be accepted and the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked. Crl.M.C. No. 2170 OF 2008 4 6. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Proceedings in Crime No.354/2008 of Thalassery Police Station is hereby quashed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 2170 OF 2008 5 Crl.M.C. No. 2170 OF 2008 6