IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 43 of 2010() ----------------------- CC.863/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BIJU K.MATHEW, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MASTHAI THOMAS, KANNAMKARA HOUSE, KUZHIKALA MURI, KUZHIKALA P.O., ELANTHOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JAIN.S.VARGHESE, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.ELIZABETH VARGHESE, VEZHAKKOMBIL HOUSE, EDAYARAMULA, KURICHIMUTTAM, KIDANGANNUR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.43 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed by the former husband to quash proceedings against him initiated at the instance of respondent No.2 for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Aranmula Police submitted Annexure-I, final report in Crime No.363 of 2007 for the said offence based on which learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta took cognizance and filed C.C.No.863 of 2007. Later, it is alleged that there was a settlement between petitioner and respondent No.2 as per which they decided to settle the dispute between them and in consequence to that settlement parties filed a petition before Family Court concerned which resulted in Annexure-3, judgment dated 12.03.2009. That petition was allowed and a decree was granted dissolving the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 with effect from 12.03.2009. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the strength of the said settlement evidenced by Annexure-2, photocopy of the compromise petition allegedly executed between petitioner and respondent No.2 and filed in O.P.Nos.749 and 750 of 2007 of Family Court Court, Thiruvalla. 2. Notice of this petition was issued to respondent No.2. But inspite of service she remains absent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.MC No.43/2010 2 3. It is seen from Annexure-2, photocopy of the compromise petition allegedly filed by petitioner and respondent No.2 that it is not signed by the advocates of the parties concerned. Learned counsel submits that the said petition was filed in the Family Court after the counsel also signed and it is pursuant to the said compromise that parties filed O.P.(Div.) No.624 of 2008 in Family Court, Thiruvalla which resulted in Annexure-3, judgment. Learned counsel for petitioner, Shri P.Haridas has confirmed genuineness of signature of respondent No.2 in Annexure-2, compromise petition. Annexure-3, judgment states that the parties sought divorce by mutual consent which indicates a settlement between them as the learned counsel asserted. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instruction has submitted that the matter is settled between the parties and that Sub Inspector, Aranmula Police Station has recorded a signed statement of respondent No.2 where it is stated that the matter is settled between the parties. 4. Added to the above is the fact that respondent No.2 has not responded to this petition to quash proceedings against her former husband (petitioner) on the strength of the settlement above referred. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed before me the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU(X), CBI v. New Delhi Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta (AIR 1996 SC 2452) where a criminal prosecution for cheating was quashed for various reasons including that the civil suit for money was settled and a decree was passed. It was observed that compromise decree in the civil suit could be taken as amounting Crl.MC No.43/2010 3 to compounding of the offence of cheating as well. In these circumstances I am inclined to allow the prayer of petitioner. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Annexure-1, final report in Crime No.363 of 2007 of Aranmula Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding in C.C.No.863 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta against petitioner are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks