CRL.MC NO. 727 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:25910 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 727 OF 2025 CRIME NO.720/2023 OF Sreekandapuram Police Station, Kannur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.2882 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, TALIPARAMBA PETITIONERS: 1 ANEESH ARAVIND AGED 30 YEARS S/O ARAVINDAKSHAN, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, NEDIYENGA.P.O, NEDIYENGA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670631 2 USHA.B AGED 60 YEARS W/O ARAVINDAKSHAN, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, NEDIYENGA.P.O, NEDIYENGA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670631 3 ARAVINDAKSHAN.K. AGED 63 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, NEDIYENGA.P.O, NEDIYENGA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670631 BY ADV V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CRL.MC NO. 727 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:25910 HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 NAMITHA.K AGED 31 YEARS D/O DAMODARAN, T.V. HOUSE, KOOTTUMUGHAM.P.O, SREEKANDAPURAM AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670631 BY ADV V.A.SATHEESH SMT. SEENA C (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 727 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:25910 C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ CRL.MC NO. 727 OF 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 24th day of March, 2025 ORDER 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 below: “What would happen to the trial of the case where the CRL.MC NO. 727 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:25910 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 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 CRL.MC NO. 727 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:25910 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.720/2023 of Sreekandapuram Police Station, Kannur, now pending as C.C.No.2882/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba. As per the final report, the offence alleged is under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek 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 defacto complainant/2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. CRL.MC NO. 727 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:25910 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 defacto complainant is not any more interested to proceed with the prosecution case against the petitioners. The defacto complainant has received all her monies and gold ornaments from the petitioners, wherefore, she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against them. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A5, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled in mediation and that the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant have jointly filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Kannur. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no further complaints against the petitioners and that she is not interested to continue with the prosecution case. The affidavit is sworn to on CRL.MC NO. 727 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:25910 her own volition. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant/2nd respondent 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 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. CRL.MC NO. 727 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:25910 Annexure-A1 FIR, Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.720/2023 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.2882/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN ska JUDGE CRL.MC NO. 727 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:25910 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 727/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1` TRUE CERTIFIED COPY THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 720/2023 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION ALONG WITH COMPLAINT Annexure A2 . TRUE CERTIFIED COPY THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 720/2023 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION Annexure A3 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE IN CRIME NO. 720/2023 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE 162 STATEMENT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure A5 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT