RAJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the husband and mother-in-law of the second respondent - defacto complainant. The defacto complainant had filed a complaint before the police alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. by the petitioners herein. The police conducted investigation and filed a final report. Cognizance has been taken of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. against both the petitioners by the J.F.C.M. -I, Ernakulam. The case is pending before that court as C.C.No. 1125 of 2005.

(2.) The petitioners along with the second respondent have come before this Court with a prayer that the prosecution initiated against the petitioners under Section 498A I.P.C. may be quashed. The second respondent is represented by a counsel. The second respondent has filed an affidavit, in which she confirms that the disputes are settled and she has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners. She now wants to withdraw the Crl.M.C.No. 373 of 2007 2 complaint filed by her. The learned counsel for the second respondent vouches for the signature of the second respondent in the affidavit filed.

(3.) I am satisfied from the materials available on record and the submissions made by the counsel for the rival contestants that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. But the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. has not been declared to be compoundable. But it is pointed out that in the wake of the dictum in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386), notwithstanding the fact that the offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the proceedings can be quashed, in the interests of justice, which must occasionally in a case like the instant one, transcend the interests of mere law. (4. Notice is given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Prosecutor does not raise any serious objection.