High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
VIJAYAN KANA v. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY - Crl MC No. 2344 of 2007  RD-KL 13864 (23 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl MC No. 2344 of 2007()
1. VIJAYAN KANA,
2. BHASKARAN KANA,
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY
For Petitioner :SMT.T.SUDHAMANI
For Respondent :SRI.T.MADHU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R.BASANT, JCrl.M.C.No.2344 of 2007
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2007
O R D E RThe petitioners are the husband and brother in law of the defacto complainant, ie. the 2nd respondent herein. On the basis of the allegations raised by the 2nd respondent, a crime was registered. Investigation was completed and final report has been filed by the police. Cognizance has already been taken by the learned Magistrate. The case is now pending as C.C.No.734 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg.
2. The petitioners and the defacto complainant have now come to this Court to apprise this Court that the disputes between them have been settled and the defacto complainant has compounded the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C raised against the petitioners. Consequent to harmonious settlement of the disputes between them, the 1st petitioner husband and the defacto complainant/2nd respondent are residing together now. The continuance of this prosecution has become unnecessary irritant in the relationship between the spouses. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the proceedings may be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri.T.Madhu, submits before the Court that as a matter of fact, the parties have resumed co-habitation and Crl.M.C.No.2344 of 2007 2 are residing harmoniously and happily now. I accept the said statement of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent made personally at the Bar and do not insist on any further joint statement by the parties. I am satisfied, from the averments in the complaint and from the statements made by the counsel at the Bar, that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and the defacto complainant/2nd respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and further proceedings can be dropped.
3. But the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C is not legally compoundable. The counsel, in these circumstances, rightly rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (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, the stipulation of Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be held to fetter the width, sweep and amplitude of the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to act in aid of justice. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this is an eminently fit case, where such powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as explained in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386] ought to be and deserve to be invoked. Crl.M.C.No.2344 of 2007 3 In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. C.C.No.734 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - I, Hosdurg is hereby quashed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.