Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 566 (KER)

Jagjivan v. State of Kerala

2007-08-24

R.BASANT

body2007
Judgment :- The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. Proceedings were initiated on the basis of a private complaint filed by the second respondent herein, the wife of the petitioner. That complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The crime was accordingly registered. It was thereafter that the investigation was conducted. Final report was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner faces allegations under Section 498A I.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has now settled his disputes with the second respondent/complainant. The marital tie has now been dissolved. Annexure III is the order passed by the Family Court, Kasaragod under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Annexure 4 is a copy of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent. The learned counsel asserts that the disputes have been settled and that the second respondent has compounded the offence under Section 498A I.P.C allegedly committed by the petitioner against her. 3. I am satisfied from the averments in this petition, from Annexure 3 and 4 documents produced and also from the assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent at the Bar that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and that the second respondent has compounded the offence under Section 498A I.P.C allegedly committed by the petitioner against her. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the settlement and composition can be accepted. 4. But the offence under Section 498A I.P.C is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel, in these circumstances, rightly rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 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 stipulations of Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be held to fetter the sweep, width and amplitude of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as explained in the dictum in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] are liable to be invoked to bring to premature termination C.C.No.982/2006 pending before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Hosdurg against the petitioner. 5. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. C.C.No.982/2006 pending before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg is hereby quashed.