IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2542 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.444/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYOLI .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- RAZAK, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. ABDURAHMAN, VADAKKE NADUVILERI HOUSE, MELADY AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ASMA, W/O. RAZAK, VADAKKE NADUVILERI HOUSE, MELADY AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.N.P.PRAJEESH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B. VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 2542 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 4th August 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused and first respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.444/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyoli. They are husband and wife. Petitioner was originally first accused in C.C.16/2003. Prosecution case is that the four accused committed offences jointly under Sections 498 A and 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code alleging that accused 2 and 3 parents and fourth accused the brother of the petitioner and first accused treated first respondent with cruelty and also misappropriated gold ornaments and also demanded more money and gold ornaments from first respondent. As accused 1 and 4 were absconding, accused 2 and 3 were tried by the learned Magistrate in C.C.16/2003, after splitting up the case as against the other accused and refiled it. Under Annexure-II judgment accused 2 and 3 were found not guilty of the offences and they were acquitted. After the CRMC 2542/09 2 presence of the petitioner was procured case as against him was proceeded as C.C.444/2007. First respondent was examined and under Annexure-II deposition she deposed that she is now living with the petitioner and denying the allegation of demand for dowry or misappropriation and gold ornaments or treating her with cruelty. After getting employment, petitioner left India and therefore the case was not proceeded further and a non bailable warrant is pending. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that in view of the settlement with first respondent/defacto complainant, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings. First respondent appeared through a counsel and also filed Crl.M.A.4330/2009 jointly with the petitioner stating that there is no subsisting dispute with the petitioner and they are now living together and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Though offence under Section 498 A is CRMC 2542/09 3 not compoundable, when the joint application filed by first respondent with the petitioner Annexure-II deposition of first respondent recorded by the learned Magistrate in the case establish that the husband and wife are living together and there is no subsisting difference of opinion, even if, the case is proceeded further, no fruitful purpose will be achieved. In the light of the evidence of first respondent recorded in Annexure-II deposition, there is no likelihood of any conviction at all. Hence it is not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case. As held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) technicalities shall not stand in the way of the amicable settlement of the matrimonial disputes. Petition is allowed. C.C.444/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyoli is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.