The court ruled that non-compoundable offences under IPC cannot be quashed based on compromise agreements having no legal standing in such situations.

C O M M O N O R D E R

The accused in C.C.Nos.1419/2013 and 1054/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, has filed these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in those cases.

2. C.C.No.1419/2013 relates to the commission of offence under Sections 323 and 498A I.P.C in connection with the alleged cruelty and physical torture meted out to the third respondent in these petitions, who is the wife of the petitioner. C.C.No.1054/2018 is in connection with the commission of the offence under Sections 452 , 341, 294(b), 506(i), 323, 324, 354, 427 and 34 I.P.C in connection with the alleged act of the petitioner mounting assault upon the third respondent and her parents at the residence of the third respondent after the dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent consequent to a joint petition filed in accordance with the settlement arrived in mediation.

3. The main ground relied on by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings in both the above cases is that all the matrimonial issues between the petitioner and the third respondent, which gave rise to multiple proceedings before various courts, were agreed to be settled and withdrawn in accordance with the terms of settlement in mediation, attached to Annexure-3 decree of the Family Court, Chavara in O.P.No.336/2014, and that in violation of the specific agreement in the above regard, the third respondent refused to file compromise petition in C.C.No.1419/2013, and to give statement in accordance with the above compromise. It is also stated that the offence alleged are not attracted even if the allegations in the final reports filed in C.C.No.1419/2013 and C.C.No.1054/2018 are accepted as such.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the third respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Annexure-3 is the copy of the decree in O.P.No.336/2014 of the Family Court, Chavara, in a petition for recovery of money towards the value of gold ornaments. The above said case along with several other matters pending before the Family Court, Chavara and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally were referred for mediation for an amicable settlement of the issues which arose out of the marital discord between the petitioner and the third respondent. As per the terms of understanding arrived in the mediation, the petitioner and the third respondent signed the Memorandum of Agreement in mediation which was accepted by the Family Court, Chavara. The above Memorandum of Agreement forms part of Annexure-3 decree of the Family Court, Chavara. As per condition No.(10) of the Memorandum of Agreement forming part of Annexure-3, the third respondent had agreed to file a compromise petition in C.C.No.1419/2013 and M.C.No.44/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, and to give statement in accordance with such compromise. Alleging violation of the above condition of the Memorandum of Agreement, the petitioner has sought the intervention of this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1419/2013 and C.C.No.1054/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally.

6. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the prayer of the petitioner in this regard cannot be allowed since it is apparent from the act of the petitioner mounting physical assault upon the third respondent and her parents leading to the institution of C.C.No.1054/2018, that it is the petitioner himself who had violated the terms of agreement in Annexure-3 decree to keep away from all future issues with the third respondent. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is not having the m