IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3112 of 2009()
1. VARGHESE MATHEW @ SHINU, AGED 33,
... Petitioner
2. ALIEYAMA MATHAI, AGED 68,
3. M.T.MATHAI, AGED 70,
4. SHIBU MATHEW, AGED 37,
5. SHIJU MATHEW (MATHEW PHILIP), AGED 33,
6. DIMPLE MATHEW, (DIMPLE SHIJU), AGED 29,
7. BINDU SHIJU, (BIJI SHIBU), AGED 33,
Vs
1. BINNY MAMACHAN, AGED 29,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :30/09/2009
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3112 of 2009
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused and first
respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No.
418/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvalla, taken cognizance
for the offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 294
(b) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
First petitioner is the husband of the first
respondent. This petition is filed under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the
proceedings contending that entire matrimonial
disputes between the parties were amicably settled
and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice
to continue with the prosecution.
2. First respondent appeared through a counsel.
Petitioners, along with the first respondent filed
Crl.M.Appl.No.5335/2009 for permission to compound
the offences stating that entire disputes were
CRMC 3112/2009 2
amicably settled between the parties and first
respondent has filed the complaint before National
Women’s Commission due to mistake of facts, which
was repeated in the statement submitted before the
police and first respondent has no complaint
against the petitioners and in such circumstances,
the offences alleged are to be compounded.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
4. Offences under Sections 498A and 294(b) of
Indian Penal Code are not compoundable under
Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Therefore, permission to compound the offences
cannot be granted. But, as held by the Apex Court
in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC
675), when the matrimonial disputes were amicably
settled between the parties, it is not in the
interest of justice to continue with the
prosecution. When there was an amicable settlement
CRMC 3112/2009 3
of the disputes between the parties, chance of a
successful prosecution is very bleak and it would
result only in unnecessary waste of valuable time
of the court. In such circumstances, it is not in
the interest of justice to continue with the
prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.No.418/2008 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court,
Thiruvalla as against the petitioners is quashed.
30th September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv