IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 5029 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.299/2010 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED MANSOOR, KADUKODU ROADARIKATHPUTHENVEEDU, VELLANADU VILLAGE, PUNALAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695575. 2. ABDUL KAREEM, -DO-. 3. SUBAIDABEEVI, -DO- 4. JUMAILA, -DO- 5. NIZAMUDEEN, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENTS / STATE AND THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. A.H.BINUSHA, D/O.ABDUL RASHEED, BISMILLAH, ARATTUKUZHI P.O., VELLARADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.5029 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused and second respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No.299/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Nedumangadu, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 final report. First petitioner is the husband and second respondent, the wife. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably, evidenced by Annexure-A2 mediated settlement agreement in W.P.(C)No.21272/2010 and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a joint petition along with the petitioners stating that in view of the settlement arrived at, second respondent has no intention to proceed with the case further and therefore, the offence is to be CRMC 5029/10 2 compounded. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. An offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable. Hence, permission cannot be granted to compound the offence. But, As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675), when the matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and continue the prosecution. Annexure-A2 mediated settlement agreement with the joint petition filed by the second respondent along with the petitioners establish that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.299/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Nedumangadu is quashed. 22nd December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv