IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1736 of 2009(F) ------------------------- CC.1013/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------- 1. SHEEJA, D/O.RAJAMMA, RESIDING AT SHAJI MANDIRAM, PLAKKODU, KAREEPRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SREEKUMAR, RESIDING AT SHAJI MANDIRAM, PLAKKODU, KAREEPRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. VENU, S/O.APPUKUTTAN ACHARY, THUNDIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKKARA MURI, VELIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SHEEBA, THUNDIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKKARA MURI, VELIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 2. SELVARAJAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN ACHARY, DWARAKA, KUTTIKKADA, MAYYANAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 2206 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. =================== Crl.M.C. No. 2206 of 2006-A & Crl.M.C. No. 1736 of 2009-F =================== Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2206/2006 is the first accused in C.C.No.884/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottarakkara. He is the defacto complainant, second respondent in Crl.M.C.No.1736/2009. Second respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2206/2006 is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.884/2005. She is first petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1736/2009. Fourth petitioner is her sister, third petitioner the husband of fourth petitioner and second petitioner the brother of first petitioner. C.C.No.1013/2008 was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 193, 196, 465 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the final report submitted after investigation as directed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. C.C.No.884/2005 was taken cognizance on the final report Crl.M.C.No.2206/2006-A & Crl.M.C.No.1736/2009-F -2- submitted by the police alleging offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Crl.M.C.No.2206/2006 is filed by the husband to quash the case as against him in C.C.No.884/2005. Crl.M.C.No. 1736/2009 is filed by the accused in C.C.No.1013/2008 to quash the case as against them. Petitioners contended that there was a suit pending before the Family Court, Kollam in O.S.No.194/2002 and Annexure A3 decree was passed on 19-7-2004 based on compromise petition and as per the settlement, the wife agreed to settle the case registered against the husband for offence under Section 498A and the husband has agreed to settle C.C.No.1013/2008 and in view of the settlement both the cases are to be quashed. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. When the husband is facing trial in C.C.No. 884/2005 for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, the wife, her brother, sister and brother-in-law Crl.M.C.No.2206/2006-A & Crl.M.C.No.1736/2009-F -3- are facing trial in C.C.No.1013/2008 for offences under Sections 193, 196, 456 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. By Annexure A3 in Crl.M.C.No. 1736/2009 and Annexure R1 in Crl.M.C.No.2206/2006, all the disputes of the husband and wife and the relatives were settled along with pending proceedings before the Family Court. These petitions are filed to quash the criminal proceedings based on the settlement. 4. Even though offences under Sections 498A, 465 and 471 of Indian Penal Code are not compoundable offences under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as declared by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC), when the disputes an essentially a matrimonial dispute or connected with it and the disputes were settled and consequent to the settlement there is no possibility of conviction, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings, standing on technicalities as it would only defeat the settlement arrived Crl.M.C.No.2206/2006-A & Crl.M.C.No.1736/2009-F -4- at. Hence it is not in the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings. 5. In such circumstances both Crl.M.C.No. 2206/2006 and Crl.M.C.No.1736/2009 are allowed. C.C.No. 1013/2008 as against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No. 1736/2009 and C.C.No.884/2005 as against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2206/2006 are quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr