T.L.Vinod vs Vineetha Rani on 30 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31882 of 2008(U)


1. T.L.VINOD, S/O.R.THOMAS, AGED 30,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THOMAS.R, S/O.RAJAMMA, AGED 61,
3. LILLY THOMAS, W/O.R.THOMAS, AGED 52 YRS,

                        Vs



1. VINEETHA RANI, W/O.R.VINOD, AGED 25,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SOMACHUDAN NAIR

                For Respondent  :SMT.K.KUSUMAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :30/07/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

               ------------------------------------------
                W.P.C.NO.31882 OF 2008
               ------------------------------------------

                Dated         30th      July 2009


                           O R D E R

Petitioners are accused and respondent the

complainant in C.C.469/2008 on the file of Judicial

First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad. Ext.P7 protest

complaint filed by respondent alleging that

petitioners committed offence under Section 498 A

read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the

refer report submitted after investigation cannot be

accepted as there was no proper investigation.

Judicial First Class Magistrate after recording sworn

statement of the respondent took cognizance of the

offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 and

issued summons to the petitioners. Petitioners filed

this petition under Article 226 and 227 of

Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari or

direction to quash Ext.P7 protest complaint and the

proceedings initiated thereunder.

2. First respondent filed an affidavit

stating that the dispute with first petitioner husband

WPC 31882/08
2

was settled amicably and Family court,

Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.570/2006 has already

dissolved their marriage and under the settlement

parties have agreed to settle all other cases pending

before Family court as well as Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Nedumangad and in view of the settlement

respondent has no objection for quashing the

proceedings.

2. Though an offence under Section 498 A of

Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, as held by the

Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of

Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) when a

matrimonial dispute is settled between the parties,

it is not in the interest of justice to stand on

technicalities and geopardise the settlement arrived

at by the parties. When respondent herself admitted

the settlement and submitted that she has no objection

for quashing the proceedings, in view of the amicable

settlement arrived at, the cognizance taken by the

learned Magistrate on the protest complaint of the

respondent and that too after a refer report was filed

by the police, it is not in the interest of justice to

continue the proceedings.

WPC 31882/08
3

Petition is allowed. C.C.469/2008 taken

cognizance on Ext.P7 protest complaint on the file

of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad is

quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.