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. 2241 of 2009 ------------------------------- CC.34/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM ........................................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. HUSSAIN S/O.ABOOBACKER KUNJU CRESCENT VALLEY, KOTTARAM NAGAR 51, PALACE WARD, KOLLAM, FROM PUTHEN BUNGLOW, NADUVATHUCHERRY, PANMANA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. ABOOBEKARKUNJU, S/O.KHADERKUNJU, PUTHAN BUNBLOW, NADUVATHUCHERRY, PANMANA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. ABUELKALAM, S/O.ABOOBAKER KUNJU, PUTHAN BUNBLOW, NADUVATHUCHERRY, PANMANA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. SABEENA D/O.SAINABAKUNJU PUTHEN BUNBLOW NADUVATHUCHERRY, PANMANA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.CHANDRALAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. REJI, W/O.HUSSAIN, CRESCENT VALLEY, KOTTARAQM NAGAR 51, PALACE WARD, KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI 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.2241 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.34/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam. Second respondent is the wife of the first petitioner. Case against the petitioners is that they committed an offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that the entire disputes between the petitioners and second respondent were settled and they are now living together. It is contended that second respondent had filed O.S.No.315/2005 before Family Court, Kollam for realisation of money and gold ornaments and Annexure-A2 compromise petition was filed therein and accepting the same, Anenxure-A3 judgment was passed by the Family Court and in view of the settlement, there is no necessity to proceed CRMC 2241/2009 2 with the case. 2.Second respondent appeared through a counsel. Second respondent, along with petitioners, filed Crl.M.Appl.No.4016/2009 under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to compound the offence. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and second respondent that as the entire disputes between the petitioners and second respondent were settled, there is no necessity to proceed with the case and second respondent is to be permitted to compound the offence. 3. As an offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, permission cannot be granted to compound the offence under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. But, as declared by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675), it is not, in the interest of justice, to continue the proceedings, when there was a settlement of matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife and their relatives and the CRMC 2241/2009 3 husband and wife are living together with their children under one roof. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C.No.34/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam as against the petitioners is quashed. 27th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv