IPC 498a Quashed-Mutual Compromise-Complainant Filed petition for Quashing
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3760 of 2010()
1. HASEENA.K.V,AGED 22 YEARS,
1. STATE OF KERALA-STATION HOUSE OFFICER, … Respondent
2. SIDDIQUE,AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.MAMMADKOYA,
3. BICHEEBI,AGED 50 YEARS,W/O.MAMMADKOYA,
4. SAFIYA,AGED 25 YEARS,D/O.MAMMADKOYA,
5. ANWAR,AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.SIDDIQUE,
6. HABEEB,AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.SIDDIQUE,
7. KOYAMON ALIAS KOYAKKA,AGED 50 YEARS, For Petitioner :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
Crl.M.C.No.3760 of 2010
Petitioner, the defacto complainant in C.C.Nos. 477/2009 and 542/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Kozhikode and C.C.No. 513/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Kozhikode, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. C.C.No.477/2009 was taken cognizance on Annexure-2 final report for the offences under Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code. C.C.No.542/2009 was taken cognizance on Annexure-4 final report for the offences under Sections 342 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. C.C.No.513/2007 was taken cognizance on Annexure-6 final report for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed by the defacto complainant in C.C.No.477/2009 stating that entire disputes with respondents 2 to 7, the accused in the cases, were settled amicably, evidenced by Annexures-7 to 9 joint petitions. It is submitted that consequent to the settlement, she has no subsisting grievance against the accused and therefore, all the cases are to be quashed.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor was heard.
3. C.C.No.477/2009 was taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that petitioner was treated with cruelty by her husband and in-laws. Affidavit filed by the petitioner/defacto complainant establishes that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana((2003) 4 SCC 675), when the matrimonial disputes were settled, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. C.C.Nos.513/2007 and 542/2009 were taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is not the person to whom hurt was caused after wrongful restrainment. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to get those cases quashed. In any case, all the offences are compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. When the offences are compoundable, it is not for this Court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. It is for the respective parties to approach the learned Magistrate for compounding the offences.
In such circumstances, petition is allowed in part. C.C.No.477/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Kozhikode is quashed. 13th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv