IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2417 of 2009 -------------------------------- CC.105/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ...................................................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1: --------------------------------------------- BYJU @ BIJU, S/O.SAMUEL, KURAVANTAYYATHU VEEDU, POOVATHOOR, TRIKKANNAPURAM MURI, KOIPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHINY BIJU, W/O.BIJU, KURAVANTAYYATHU VEEDU, POOVATHOOR, TRIKKANNAPURAM MURI, KOIPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT MANALOOR HOUSE, CHERIYAIRAMPU P.O., MARAMON. 3. S.I. OF POLICE, KOIPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R1 & R3. ADV. SRI.JAIBY PAUL FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2417 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.105/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta. Second respondent is his wife. Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner and accused 2 and 3 on Annexure-2 final report. As petitioner was absconding, accused 2 and 3 were tried by the Magistrate and under Annexure-3 judgment, they were acquitted, finding them not guilty of the offence. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that the dispute with the second respondent was amicably settled and they are now living together and in view of the settlement, it is not, in the interest of justice, to continue the proceedings. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that the dispute with the petitioner was settled and she is now living with CRMC 2417/09 2 the petitioner, along with their children. 3. Crl.M.Appl.No.4130/2009 is also jointly filed by the petitioner and second respondent for permission to compound the offence. But as an offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, permission cannot be granted to compound the offence. 4. As declared by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675), when matrimonial dispute was settled between the husband and wife and they are living together along with their children, it is not, in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and jeo pardise the matrimonial settlement arrived at by the husband and wife. Hence, petition is allowed. C.C.No.105/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta as against the petitioner is quashed. 27th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv