IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2324 of 2008() ----------------------------------- (CRIME NO.257/2006 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION ) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- 1. C.V. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O KUNHAMBU NAIR, VATTAKKALLU, KINANOOR VILLAGE. 2. C.V. SAROJINI AMMA, W/O KUNHAMBU NAIR, VETTAKKALLU, KINANOOR VILLAGE. 3. C.V. RAJALEKSHMI, D/O KUNHAMBU NAIR, VETTEKKALLU, KINANOOR VILLAGE. 4. CHOORIKKADN CHANDRAN, S/O C.NARAYANAN NAIR, PUTHUKKUNNU THATTU, KINANOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.V. RAJESHWARI, D/O C. KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHULLUVAKOD, ALENTHATTA, VELIYAPOIL, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB ADV. SRI.T.MADHU - R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2324 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under Sec.498A of the IPC. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent. Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are the relatives of the 1st petitioner. The crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent which was referred to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. The case is pending before the learned Magistrate. 2. At this stage, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent have come before this Court with a prayer that the pending prosecution against the petitioners may be brought to premature termination invoking the powers under Sec.482 of Crl.M.C. No.2324 of 2008 -: 2 :- the Cr.P.C. The disputes have been settled between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. Parties have agreed that the matrimonial tie can be dissolved. They have already taken steps in that direction. The 2nd respondent has no further grievance. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent asserts that the 2nd respondent has no surviving grievance whatsoever. He confirms that Annexure-II agreement has been executed and all disputes have been settled thereby. It is prayed that the continuation of the prosecution which is totally unnecessary and meaningless may not be permitted. 3. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar and also from the documents produced that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes. If legally permissible and possible, I am satisfied that the composition/settlement can be accepted and the proceedings brought to premature termination. 4. The offence under Sec.498A of the IPC is not compoundable. But the learned counsel for the parties, in these circumstances, rightly rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) and Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287). I am satisfied that, relying on these decisions, powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked in the facts Crl.M.C. No.2324 of 2008 -: 3 :- and circumstances of the instant case where such invocation is found to be eminently justified. 5. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) C.C.No.315/07 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Court-II, Hosdurg, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge