IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2434 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.54/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PONNANI .................... (CRIME NO.10/2008 OF THE PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- NOUSHAD, S/O.ABDU, AGED 30 YEARS, VALIYAKATHU MUTHATTU HOUSE, NENMANAD, PAVARATTY P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): STATE: -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CHACHU, D/O.HANEEFA, VILAKKERI HOUSE, MAARANJERRI VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B.VINOD R2 BY ADV.MR.MUSTAFA KAMAL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 2434 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 4th August 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.2434/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani taken cognizance on Annexure-B final report for the offence under Sections 498 A, 406, 420, 323 and 341 of Indian Penal Code. Second respondent is the wife of the petitioner and defacto complainant. Prosecution case is that petitioner married the second respondent on 4/6/2000 and he treated her with cruelty and also misappropriated 185 sovereigns of gold of second respondent and also caused hurt and thereby committed the offences. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that disputes with second respondent and petitioner were settled and in order to to secure justice the case is to be quashed. 2. Crl.M.A.4137/2009 is jointly filed by second respondent and petitioner under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to CRMC 2434/09 2 compound the offences. Though offence under Sections 406, 420, 323 and 341 are compoundable, offences under Section 498 A is not compoundable. Hence in the joint petition they sought permission to quash the proceedings. 3. Second respondent appeared through a counsel. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-B final report shows that the allegation against petitioner is that he committed matrimonial offence and incident offence on the allegations that he misappropriated gold ornaments belonging to his wife and also caused hurt to her. Joint petition filed by the petitioner and second respondent establish that all their disputes were amicably settled and she is not intending to proceed with the case and she has no objection for quashing the case. But for the offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code, all other offences are compoundable. As held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003 (2) KLT 1062) when the matrimonial dispute was settled between husband CRMC 2434/09 3 and wife, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and continue the proceedings. In such circumstances, to secure justice the case is to be quashed. Petition is allowed. C.C.54/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani taken cognizance under Annexure-B final report is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.