IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2241 of 2009()
1. HUSSAIN S/O.ABOOBACKER KUNJU
... Petitioner
2. ABOOBEKARKUNJU, S/O.KHADERKUNJU,
3. ABUELKALAM, S/O.ABOOBAKER KUNJU,
4. SABEENA D/O.SAINABAKUNJU PUTHEN BUNBLOW
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. REJI, W/O.HUSSAIN,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :27/07/2009
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2241 of 2009
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.34/2006
on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court,
Kollam. Second respondent is the wife of the first
petitioner. Case against the petitioners is that
they committed an offence under Section 498A read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition
is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that
the entire disputes between the petitioners and
second respondent were settled and they are now
living together. It is contended that second
respondent had filed O.S.No.315/2005 before Family
Court, Kollam for realisation of money and gold
ornaments and Annexure-A2 compromise petition was
filed therein and accepting the same, Anenxure-A3
judgment was passed by the Family Court and in view
of the settlement, there is no necessity to proceed
CRMC 2241/2009 2
with the case.
2.Second respondent appeared through a counsel.
Second respondent, along with petitioners, filed
Crl.M.Appl.No.4016/2009 under Section 320 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, to compound the offence. It
is contended by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and second respondent that as the
entire disputes between the petitioners and second
respondent were settled, there is no necessity to
proceed with the case and second respondent is to
be permitted to compound the offence.
3. As an offence under Section 498A of Indian
Penal Code is not compoundable, permission cannot
be granted to compound the offence under Section
320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. But, as declared
by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana
((2003) 4 SCC 675), it is not, in the interest of
justice, to continue the proceedings, when there
was a settlement of matrimonial disputes between
the husband and wife and their relatives and the
CRMC 2241/2009 3
husband and wife are living together with their
children under one roof.
In such circumstances, petition is allowed.
C.C.No.34/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial
Magistrate’s Court, Kollam as against the
petitioners is quashed.
27th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv