High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
BEENA, W/O. LALJI v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 1984 of 2007  RD-KL 10851 (21 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl MC No. 1984 of 2007()
1. BEENA, W/O. LALJI,
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
2. LALJI, S/O. RAVI, AGED 33,
3. RAVI, S/O. VALLON, AGED 55,
4. VAVA, W/O. RAVI, AGED 53,
5. SHILJI, W/O. CHANDRAN, AGED 31 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.J.THOMAS STANLEY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.Crl.M.C.No.1984 of 2007
Dated this the 21st day of June 2007
O R D E RThe petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. There are four accused persons in that prosecution. Accused 1 is her husband and accused 3,4 and 5 are the in-laws of the defacto complainant. Proceedings were initiated on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The matter is pending before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala.
2. The petitioner has now come before this court to report to the court that the petitioner has settled all her outstanding disputes with accused 1 to 4 (i.e. Respondents 2 to 5 herein). She has compounded the offence allegedly committed by accused 1 to 4. Parties are leading a happy and harmonious life. The first accused/her husband is now employed abroad. It is, in these circumstances, submitted that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked and the proceedings against the accused may be quashed. Crl.M.C.No.1984/07 2
3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner herself through counsel. The counsel vouches for the identity and signature of the complainant in the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner further vouches for the settlement of the disputes by the petitioner with accused 1 to 4. The learned Public Prosecutor to whom notice has been given does not also raise any objection against the acceptance of the settlement and composition.
4. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petitioner has willingly and voluntarily settled all her disputes with the accused and compounded the offence allegedly committed by them. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings can be brought to premature termination.
5. But the offence under Section 498A I.P.C is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The counsel, in these circumstances, rightly relies on the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386]. That decision is authority for the proposition that the interests of justice may, at times, transcend the interests of mere law and in such circumstances Crl.M.C.No.1984/07 3 like the instant one, the stipulations under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot fetter the width, the sweep and amplitude of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. I am satisfied that the present one is an eminently fit case where the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] must be invoked and applied and proceedings brought to premature termination.
7. In the result, this petition is allowed. C.C.No.805/2006 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala against respondents 2 to 5 (accused 1 to 4) is hereby quashed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1984/07 4 Crl.M.C.No.1984/07 5
ORDER21ST DAY OF MAY2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.