2025:KER:22183 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 353 OF 2025 CRIME NO.2639/2019 OF Chengannoor Police Station, Alappuzha AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.2614 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHENGANNUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1-3: 1 NISAMUDEEN AGED 44 YEARS S/O IBRAHIM KUTTY, PUTHUPPARAMBIL THEKKETHIL (H), MULAKKUZHA MURI, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689505 2 HASNA AGED 27 YEARS W/O SALAHUDHEEN, KURUDHANATHU PUTHAN VEEDU, KANNAMKODE MURI, ADUR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691523 3 RIHAN AGED 32 YEARS S/O ANSAR, PALLATH KATTIL VEEDU, KARUNAGAPALLY MURI, KARUNAGAPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 690518 BY ADVS. BHANU THILAK 2025:KER:22183 Crl.MC.No.353 of 2025 :2: SARUN K. IDICULA S.R.PRASANTH FATHIMA RINSHA T.P. RESPONDENT/S TATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689121 3 ANSHA C N AGED 35 YEARS D/O NAZEER A, CHUNGANANIL VEEDU, THEKKETHUKAVALA P.O, CHIRAKADAVU MURI, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686519 BY ADV VISHNU.R SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:22183 Crl.MC.No.353 of 2025 :3: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.MC.No.353 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of March, 2025 O R D E R B.S.Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and another [(2003) 4 SCC 675] held that the offence under Section 498A can be quashed by the High Court exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), though such offence is not compoundable under Section 320. Relying on State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699], a two Judges Bench in B.S. Joshi (Supra) held that ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by legislature. The fact that there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction, in the wake of settlement between the parties, was taken stock of. The following findings in B.S.Joshi (supra) are relevant and extracted here 2025:KER:22183 Crl.MC.No.353 of 2025 :4: below: “What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband, with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the "negative". It would, however, be a 2025:KER:22183 Crl.MC.No.353 of 2025 :5: different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.” 2. The dictum laid down in B.S.Joshi (supra) was doubted along with that laid down in other cases and referred to and considered by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. B.S.Joshi (supra), along with other cases, were confirmed by the Supreme Court. It is relevant to note that the subject matter in B.S.Joshi (supra) was specifically with reference to the offences under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.2639/2019 of Chengannur Police Station, Alappuzha, now pending as C.C.No.2614/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur. The offences alleged are under Section 498A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 2025:KER:22183 Crl.MC.No.353 of 2025 :6: and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The petitioners seeks quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 5. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The said direction was complied and the statement was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled amicably and that the defacto complainant and the 1st petitioner are living together comfortably as husband and wife, wherefore, the defacto complainant is disinterested to continue with the criminal proceedings against 2025:KER:22183 Crl.MC.No.353 of 2025 :7: the petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that the complaint stemmed from some misunderstanding. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and that she has no objection in quashing the case against the petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. 6. In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in B.S.Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), are fully satisfied. This court 2025:KER:22183 Crl.MC.No.353 of 2025 :8: is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioners will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No. 2639/2019, Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.2614/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE. Raj. 2025:KER:22183 Crl.MC.No.353 of 2025 :9: APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 353/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS DATED 15-10-2019 IN CRIME NO.2639/2019 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT Annexure A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 29-09-2021 IN CRIME NO. 2639/2019 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 16-12-2024