IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1758 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.2233/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER:ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- GIJO BABY, S/O.BABY, MENOTHUMALIL HOUSE, 1/106/1, SEMINARY PADY, U.C.COLLEGE P.O.,ALUVA. BY ADV. MR.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. DEEPA XAVIER, W/O.GIJO BABY, MENOTHUMALIL HOUSE,1/106/1, SEMINARY PADY, U.C.COLLEGE P.O.,ALUVA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS. MR.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM, MR.V.M.SAJAN. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1758 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th June 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.2233/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva. First respondent is the defacto complainant therein and the wife of the petitioner. Case against the petitioner is that he committed an offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that subsequently petitioner and first respondent resolved their disputes and are now living together and for continuation of the peaceful life, proceedings may be quashed. 2. Crl.M.A.2943/2009 is jointly filed by the petitioner and first respondent under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure to permit them to compound the offence stating that they have resolved the dispute and are now living together. An offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is not CRMC 1758/09 2 compoundable. Therefore permission cannot be granted to compound the offence under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. The offence alleged against petitioner is purely of personal nature arising out of the matrimonial dispute with first respondent wife as she alleged cruelty. Now all their disputes were resolved they are living together, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings and cause hurdles on the matrimonial life. Therefore, though the offence is not compoundable, technicalities shall not stand in the way of peaceful atmosphere in the matrimonial life as held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675 ). In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C.2233/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.