IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3200 of 2009() ------------------------- C.P. 97 OF 2009 OF JFCM, NADAPURAM. PETITIONER(S): -------------------- NAZRATH, W/O. RAZACK, AGED 24 YEARS, KALLULLA PARAMBATH HOUSE, CHEKKIAD AMSOM, KARUVANTHERY DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE --------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAZAK, S/O. CHEKKU HAJI, AGED 26 YEARS, KALLULLA PARAMBIL, CHEKKIAD AMSOM, KURUVANTHERI DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAYAM POLICE STATION. 3. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED. 4. RASHEED, S/O. MOIDU HAJI, MEETHALE KATHRIKA VEETTIL HOUSE, VALAYAN P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.11.2009 I N CRL.M.A.5910/2009. R1 BY ADV. SRI. CIBI THOMAS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON 05/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 3200 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have C.P.97 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nadapuram quashed. 2. Petitioner was given in marriage to one Rasheed, additional fourth respondent herein, on 16.9.1999. After the marriage, both of them were living in the house of Rasheed. A child was born in the wedlock. 3. The petitioner would say that even prior to her marriage, she was in intimate terms with the first respondent, who was closely related to her. But their relationship was opposed by the father of the petitioner. On 26.10.2006, the petitioner claims to have left the company of her husband and joined the first respondent. That resulted in the husband of the petitioner filing a Crl.M.C.3200/2009. 2 complaint and a crime was registered as Crime No. 234 of 2006 before the second respondent. Petitioner was taken into custody and produced before the learned Magistrate. She stated that she wishes to go along with the first respondent and the case was thereafter referred. That reference report was accepted. 4. It is stated that on 10.11.2006 the fourth respondent filed a complaint before the Magistrate, which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. A crime was registered as Crime No. 245 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 361, 364, 365, 366, 376, 467 and 498 of Indian Penal Code. The police, after investigation, filed the final report and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences only under Sections 366 and 498 IPC. The petitioner would say that the final report is not maintainable and that she and the first respondent had settled the marriage between them. It is pointed out that in view of the said settlement between the petitioner and the first respondent, further proceedings are Crl.M.C.3200/2009. 3 unnecessary. It is prayed that she may be permitted to compound the offences. 5. It is further stated that the fourth respondent has pronounced Talaq on 23.3.2008 and therefore she has ceased to be the wife of the fourth respondent. She has subsequently married the first respondent on 9.9.2009. The fourth respondent has also re-married. Therefore, it is pointed out that no further proceedings need be continued and the proceedings may be quashed. 6. Unfortunately, the prayer cannot be granted. The defacto complainant is the fourth respondent. It is on the basis of his complaint that the crime was registered and investigation was conducted. On the basis of the final report filed by the police, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. First of all offences punishable under Sections 366 and 498 are not compoundable at all and even assuming that there is any compromise or settlement is to be arrived at, the fourth respondent will necessarily have to be a party. May be that the petitioner and the first Crl.M.C.3200/2009. 4 respondent are accused in the case. But it is for the defacto complainant to agree for compounding assuming that the offences are compoundable. In the case on hand, that question also does not arise. If the parties entered into a settlement with regard to the disputes involved in the proceedings, it may be possible to drop the proceedings. Such a contingency has not happened in the case on hand. In the absence of any consent on the part of the fourth respondent, nothing can be done in the matter and further the petitioner is not the complainant, but she is an accused in the case. In the light of all these facts, this petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.