IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2447 of 2009 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/07/2009 IN CMP. 1462 /2009 IN CC.1067/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. NANDHANAN,S/O. BALAN,PANDATH HOUSE MADAKKATHARA, CHIRAKKAKODE, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. AMMINI,W/O. BALAN,PANDATH HOUSE, MADAKKATHARA, CHIRAKKAKODE, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINAT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SHALI,D/O. VASUDEVAN, CHITTIATH HOUSE, PUTHOOR P.O., VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R1 ADV. SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 2447 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 28th day of July,2009 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C.1067/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur. Second respondent is the de facto complainant and the wife of the first petitioner. Second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. Prosecution case is that petitioner committed the offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.1067/2001 contending that the entire dispute between the petitioners and second respondent were amicably settled and in such circumstance, there is no necessity to proceed with the case. When the learned Magistrate particularly recorded the evidence in part. C.M.P.1462/2009 was filed under section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to compound the offence. Under Annexure 4 order learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the petition holding that it cannot be permitted, as the offence under section 498A is not 2 a compoundable offence. 2. Crl.M.Appl.4172/2009 is jointly filed by the petitioners and the second respondent reiterating the case that there was an amicable settlement of the dispute and in such circumstance there is no necessity to proceed with the case. Annexure 5 statement was also filed independently by the second respondent to the effect that all the disputes with the petitioners were settled and she has no objection for quashing the case. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Though an offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable under section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as held by the Apex Court B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (4) SCC 675) when the matrimonial dispute was settled it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and to cause obstruction for the matrimonial peace and harmony. In the interest of justice, criminal proceedings is to be quashed. Petition is allowed. C.C.1067/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- 3 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006