ARAFATH S/O MUHAMMED @ KUNHAPPA; MUHAMMED @ KUNHAPPA S/O MOIDU; MAIMOONA W/O MUHAMMED @ KUNHAPPA Vs. SAMEERA D/O ABDUL MANAF; STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused in C.C. No.18 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Palakkad as well as Criminal Appeal No.711 of 2010 of Sessions Court(Fast Track No.I), Palakkad which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.23/2009 of Palakkad Town North Police Station] For the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.18 of 2009 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Palakkad(AnnexureA) which is now pending in appeal as Criminal Appeal No.711 of 2010 on the files of Sessions Court(Fast Track No.I), Palakkad and to quash C.C. No.18 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Palakkad as well as Criminal Appeal No.711 of 2010 of Sessions Court(Fast Track No.I), Palakkad as the matter is settled out of court.

(2.) The allegation in the above case is that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the defacto complainant was taken place on 13.07.2013 as per the Islamic religious ceremony. After the marriage the de facto complainant was residing with her husband at her house at Kodunthirappully. Accused No.2 and 3 are father and mother of the accused No.1. According to the de facto complainant at the time of marriage 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given by her parents. Thereafter the accused misappropriated the same and thus got difference of opinion among spouse which ultimately lead to the registration of case against the accused in Crime No.23/2009 in the Palakkad Town North police station for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with 34 of IPC. It is the further case of the petitioner that the trial court, as per Annexure- A judgment dated 30.11.2010 in C.C.No.18/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Palakkad, convicted the accused for the said offences and imposed sentence on them and the accused challenged the same by filing appeal ie., Crl.Appeal No. 711/10 and while the above appeal was pending in the court of sessions (Fast Track No.1), Palakkad, the dispute between the accused and de facto complainant has been settled out of court and accordingly the de facto complainant who is the first respondent herein sworn into an affidavit dated 01.04.2013 in support of Crl.M.A.No.2933 of 2013 which is a petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C for compounding the offence which is signed by all the accused as well as the defacto complainant and counter signed by the respective counsels.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/s as well as the first respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.