IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH APRIL 2009 / 8TH VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1416 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.263/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------- 1. ABDUL NAZAR, S/O. ABU, UDAYAMANGALA PARAMBU, ARIKADU, NALLALAM P.O. KOZHIKODE. 2. FATHIMA,S/O. ABU,UDAYAMANGALA PARAMBU, ARIKADU, NALLALAM P.O. KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.K.A.ANGEL TREENA SMT.ARLISS TRENCY ANTONY RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKIDE. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 3. RESEENA,D/O.HASSAN, KODASERRY PARAMBU, A.T.HOUSE, PANDEERA KAVU AMSOM,& DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1416 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of April, 2009 O R D E R Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.263/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode, wherein both of them stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498 (A) read with Section 34 of the IPC on a charge laid by the S.I. of Police, Nallalam Police Station. Crime in respect of the above case was registered on the basis of a complaint given by the 3rd respondent, wife of the 1st petitioner before the Court, and it was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Petitioners now seek quashing of the criminal proceedings in the above case pending before the Magistrate court, submitting that they have entered into a composition of the offences with the defacto complainant, 3rd respondent. CRL.M.C.1416/09 2 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor. A photocopy of the agreement purported to have been entered into by the 3rd respondent, defacto complainant with the 1st petitioner, her husband, settling the disputes between them, wherein, she is stated to have undertaken to file joint petition for withdrawal of the criminal case pending before the Magistrate Court, is relied by the counsel for the petitioners for termination of the criminal case pending before the Magistrate against the petitioners. The apex court has held that in matrimonial offences, if the parties have settled the disputes, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings, is the case of the counsel for the petitioners to submit that once the parties have settled the disputes, this Court is bound to recognize it and terminate the criminal proceedings pending before the court. I am not impressed by the submissions of the counsel. This court cannot have an enquiry as to the genuineness of the compromise purported to have been entered by the parties. Further more, the accused in the police charge sheet case, CRL.M.C.1416/09 3 have no right to insist for acceptance of the composition entered with the defacto complainant especially where one of the offences is found to be non compoundable. It is open to the petitioners to approach the Magistrate, where the case is pending, to seek appropriate orders on the basis of the composition stated to have been made by the parties. I do not find that this is a fit case, where the exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court is called for. Criminal M.C. is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009