IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2011 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1405 of 2011() ------------------------------ OP.152/2011 of (CR.NO.92/2011 OF THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR) .................... PETITIONER(S):COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ SANDHYA.V., D/O.V.CHANDRAN, IX/399/A, INDEEVARAM, NEAR MASJID ROAD, ELOOKKARA, MUPPADAM.P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRICHUR WEST POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRICHUR WEST POLICE STATION, TRICHUR - 673 003. 3. SAJITH KUMAR, S/O.LATE DR.CHANDRAHASAN, FLAT 3B, CHEELOOR VINTAGE PALACE, TRISSUR. PRESENT RESIDING CAPITAL HERITAGE, NEAR M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR - 673 006. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAIBY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs P. Q. BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Crl.M.C. No. 1405 of 2011 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 20th day of May, 2011 O R D E R This is a petition filed by the complainant in Crime No.92 of 2011of Thrissur West Police Station to quash Anneuxre-A1 First Information Report. 2. Petitioner and third respondent are husband and wife. On her complaint, police has registered a case against the third respondent under section 498A IPC as Crime No.92 of 2011of Thrissur West Police Station. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. Ext.A2 is the agreement entered into between them. The agreement was to the effect that the petitioner has to withdraw the case against the third respondent and the third respondent has to pay `7,00,000/- to her. Accordingly, a Demand Draft was kept in the custody of Adv. Sri. Raman Kutty of Thrissur Bar. It is also stated that the third respondent should take necessary steps to quash the present case registered CRMC 1405/2011 2 against him by the police, but the third respondent has not taken any steps for the same. Therefore, in this petition the petitioner has prayed that the above crime registered against the third respondent may be quashed. 3. Notice was issued to the third respondent, but he remained absent. 4. The offence alleged against the third respondent was under section 498A IPC which is non-compoundable. The Apex Court has held in B.S. Joshi V. State of Haryana (2003(2) KLT 1062 (SC)) and also in Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC)) that though the offences alleged against the petitioner were non- compoundable and if the parties had settled the matter and it was not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, the entire proceedings can be quashed, exercising the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the present case the petitioner has settled the matter with the first respondent/de facto complainant. Therefore no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending. In the CRMC 1405/2011 3 light of the principles laid down in the above decisions and in the light of Annxure-A2 agreement filed by the petitioner and for the reasons stated above,, I feel that the entire proceedings 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings in Annexure-A1 F.I.R. is hereby quashed. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE . mn.