SUNITHA NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution under Section 498 A and 406 I.P.C. She has entered appearance through counsel and prays that the prosecution initiated against her husband, the second respondent and his relatives may be quashed, invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police (a copy of which is produced as Annexure 2).

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Sri.Manjeri S.Sunder Raj vouches that the petitioner is the defacto complainant and she has willingly and voluntarily settled the disputes with her husband and his relatives and has entered into Annexure 3 agreement. THE offence, though not compoundable, I am satisfied that with the aid of the dictum in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386], this is eminently a fit case where quashing of proceedings can be resorted to at the request of the petitioner. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is in these circumstances allowed. C.C.No.363 of 2002 before the J.F.C.M-1, Kozhikode is hereby quashed.