IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3442 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CC.75/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAVOOR. CRIME NO.94/2007 OF CHATHANOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 7 --------------------------------------------- 1. SABEER HUSSAIN,S/O. BASHEER, PANCHITTAZHIKAM VEEDU, RAMANKULANGARA, KANNIMELCHERI, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 2. BASHEER,S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, PANCHITTAZHIKAM VEEDU, RAMANKULANGARA, KANNIMELCHERI, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. AYSHA,W/O. BASHEER, PANCHITTAZHIKAM VEEDU, RAMANKULANGARA, KANNIMELCHERI, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 4. SAKKEER, S/O. RAHMAN @ ABDUL RAHMAN, PANCHITTAZHIKAM VEEDU, RAMANKULANGARA KANNIMELCHERI, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. FATHIMA @ SUNI, W/O. SAKEER, PANCHITTAZHIKAM VEEDU, RAMANKULANGARA, KANNIMELCHERI, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. SHAKEELA, D/O.AYSHA, PANCHITTAZHIKAM VEEDU, RAMANKULANGARA, KANNIMELCHERI, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. RAMLATH, D/O. AYSHA, PANCHITTAZHIKAM VEEDU, RAMANKULANGARA, KANNIMELCHERI, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN MR.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. Crl.MC.No. 3442 of 2009 2. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANOOR POLICE STATION, CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SUDHEENA,D/O. NUJUMUDDIN, VELANTAZHIKAM VEEDU, KUNDUMALCHERI, NEDUMBANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PANCHITTAZHIKAM VEEDU, RAMANKULANGARA, KANNIMELCHERI, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. R3 BY ADV. MR.V.K.RAFEEK. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3442 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 1st December 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and third respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.75/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravoor taken cognizance on Annexure-I final report for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 324, 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate contending that as the entire matrimonial disputes with third respondent were settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Prosecution case, as is clear from Annexure-I final report is that first petitioner married third respondent on 4/5/2004 and thereafter they were living together as husband and wife. While so, petitioners in furtherance of their common intention demanded more dowry and on the failure to Crmc 3442/09 2 give more dowry, petitioners caused hurt to third respondent and thereby committed the offences. 2. Third respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Crl.M.A.5904/2009 along with petitioners seeking permission to settle the dispute contending that entire disputes were settled out of court and third respondent has no intention to proceed with the case further and therefore, the case is to be compounded. As an offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, permission cannot be granted to compound the offence as sought for. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, third respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Compounding petition filed by third respondent along with the petitioners establish that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. Annexure-II agreement entered into by first petitioner and third respondent further corroborates the factum of settlement. As held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675), when there has been complete settlement of the matrimonial disputes, it is not in the interest of Crmc 3442/09 3 justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.75/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravoor is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.