IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1329 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- CC.NO.227/2006 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,PATHANAMTHITTA. .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- AJAYAKUMAR, S/O.SREEDARAN VAIDYAN, S.N.V SADANAM, CHAKKUVARAKKAL, KOTTARAKARA. BY ADVS. MR.ALEXANDER GEORGE, MR.DILIP MOHAN. RESPONDENTS/ STATE/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KONNY POLICE STATION. 3. SUSHA, D/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN B/52, KOWDIAR GARDENS, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI, R3 BY ADVS. MR.V.PHILIP MATHEW, MR.J.ABHILASH. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ==================== Crl.M.C. No. 1329 of 2009-A ==================== Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.227/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. Third respondent is his wife. The offence alleged against petitioner is under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that the matrimonial dispute between petitioner and third respondent are settled and so there is no necessity to proceed with the case. 2. A joint petition is filed by petitioner and third respondent under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to compound the offence stating that they have settled the dispute and third respondent do not intend to proceed further with the case. An offence Crl.M.C.No.1329/2009-A -2- under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code cannot be compounded even with the permission of the Court and therefore permission sought for cannot be granted. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and third respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for third respondent and petitioner submitted that the entire dispute between the husband and wife are settled and as the trial is for a matrimonial offence, as held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC), in the interest of justice the case is to be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the disputes between petitioner and third respondent were resolved. 5. Considering the fact that trial is only for the matrimonial offence and the matrimonial disputes were amicably resolved and third respondent the defacto complainant expressed her intention not to proceed with the case, it is not in the interest of justice, to proceed with the Crl.M.C.No.1329/2009-A -3- case and jeopardize the settlement standing on technicalities as held by the Apex Court in Joshy's Case (supra). As technicalities in such circumstances shall not stand in the way, in the interest of justice, the case is to be quashed. 6. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.227/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta as against the petitioner is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr