IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 84 of 2009() --------------------------------- CC.1236/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ----------------------- 1. BIJU, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.BABU, KAMPIVELIKAKATHU VEETTIL BINANIPURAM KARA, PARAVUR TALUK. 2. BABU, S/O.RAGHAVAN , 60 YEARS, KAMPIVELIKAKATHU VEETTIL BINANIPURAM KARA, PARAVUR TALUK. 3. SUJANA, W/O.BABU, 55 YEARS KAMPIVELIKAKATHU VEETTIL, BINANIPURAM KARA, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.C.S.MANU MR.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2. REMYA, D/O.ASOKAN, 26 YEARS, KAMPIVELIKAKATHU VEETTIL BINANIPURAM KARA, PARAVUR TALUK. 3. REMA , W/O.ASHOKAN, KADAVUPARAMBIL VEETTIL, KARUMALOOR KARA, KARUMALOOR VILLAGE PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. CRMC. 84/2009 ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED. 4. PAULSON, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, GOPURATHINKAL HOUSE, THATTAMPADY BHAGAM, KARUMALOOR KARA, KARUMALOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 2.2.09 IN CRL.MA. 659/09. ADV. MR.GANESH G.PILLAI FOR R2 & 4 MR. VINUCHAND FOR R2 & 4 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB SRI.A.S.BRIJESH FOR ADDL.R4 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 84 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed to quash the charge sheet and all proceedings in C.C. 1236/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur. The petitioners are charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 294 (b) and 498(A) r/w 34 IPC. The allegation is of cruelty under Section 498(A), attack of CW2 Paulson under Section 232 and 224 and usage of abusing words against the 1st accused. Now I am informed that the trial is in progress and some of the witnesses are examined before this court. An affidavit is filed by the wife who is the 2nd respondent, the mother-in-law who is the 3rd respondent and by Mr. Paulson who is CW2 in this case. All of them had concerned to the effect that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and it is not necessary to proceed further. According to them Sections 294(b) and 498(A) are non-compoundable offences and therefore it requires interference of this court under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C by Crl.M.C.No. 84/2009 -2- quashing the proceedings. 2. I have perused the affidavit of the parties and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the prosecutor. The learned prosecutor would try to impress upon me regarding CW5. But a perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that it is her husband CW2 who is aggrieved and that he has filed an affidavit to the effect that the matter may be disposed of as settled. The role of CW5 is only that of an eye witness to the incident and therefore there cannot be any grievance for that witness when CW2 the affected has no such grievance. The persons affected namely respondents 2, 3 and 4 also had filed an affidavit before this court. The methodology in such type of cases had been decided by the apex court in the decision reported in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana [2003 (4) SCC 675]. The apex court held that: “While exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution Crl.M.C.No. 84/2009 -3- to continue. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.” The apex court further held that: “The hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interests of women and against the object for which his provision was added”. Now the parties have settled the matter amicably and they have parted as good friends. Therefore interest of justice requires quashing all the proceedings under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C. Therefore the Crl.M.C is allowed and all the proceedings in C.C. 1236/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, N. Paravur is quashed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm