DEVASUNDARI Vs. P ARUNACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties to these petitions are the spouses. Crl.M.C.No.312/07 is filed by the husband to quash a crime registered at the Kalamassery Police Station as Crime No.634/05 under Sec.498A of the IPC. The de facto complainant is his wife - the 1st respondent in that Crl.M.C.

(2.) Crl.M.C.No.306/07 is filed by the wife with a prayer that an F.I.R. registered in Crime No.613/06 of the same Police Station under Secs.324 and 427 of the IPC may also be quashed. The spouses submit that the acrimony between them has now been settled harmoniously and they have entered into an agreement copies of which are produced in both cases. They have decided to live separately after settling all their disputes.

(3.) The spouses are represented by their respective counsel. The learned counsel submit that the matter has been settled and the parties have entered into an agreement dated 21/12/2006 copies of which have been produced in both petitions. Inasmuch as the spouses have settled their disputes and they have reported such composition to this Court, it would be unnecessary to permit continuation of the steps in investigation in both the crimes which are registered as Crime Nos.634/05 (Crl.M.C.No.312/07) and 613/06 (Crl.M.C.No.306/07). All the offences, except the one punishable under Sec.498A of the IPC, are compoundable. Though the offence under Sec.498A of the IPC is not compoundable, the learned counsel place reliance on the decision in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) and contend that in view of the harmonious settlement of the dispute between the spouses, this is an eminently fit case where such extraordinary inherent powers can and ought to be invoked, notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Sec.498A of the IPC is not compoundable.