P T UMMER Vs. N BELCIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent had filed a complaint against her husband (1st accused) and petitioners 1 to 4 (accused 2 to 5), who are her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law respectively. That complaint was referred to the police and the police had registered a crime. After completion of investigation, final report was filed raising allegations under Section 498 A read with 34 I.P.C against all the 5 accused persons. Cognizance had been taken by the learned Magistrate and the proceedings are now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ponnani as C.C.No.240 of 2005.

(2.) The petitioners and the 1st respondent have now come before this Court with a prayer that the prosecution initiated against the petitioners and the 1st accused may be quashed, the parties having settled their disputes harmoniously and the 1st respondent having compounded the offence committed by all the accused persons including the petitioners herein. A divorce has been effected and all legal claims have been settled and liabilities discharged. The 1st respondent has entered appearance through counsel. Crl.M.Appl.No.1865 of 2007 has been filed jointly by the petitioners and the 1st respondent. Counsel for the 1st respondent vouches for the signature of the 1st respondent in the application for composition.

(3.) I am satisfied, from the totality of inputs available, that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and the composition, if legally permissible, can be accepted and proceedings brought to premature termination. The offence under Section 498 A I.P.C is not compoundable, but the counsel rightly rely on the dictum in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) S.C 1386]. That decision is authority for the proposition that in an exceptional case interests of justice may transcend the interests of mere law and in such circumstances, the stipulations of Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot fetter the width and the amplitude of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied, that this is an eminently fit case where the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as permitted in the dictum in B.S.Joshy (supra) can and ought to be invoked.