2025:KER:24594 Crl.M.C No.986/2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 986 OF 2025 CRIME NO.476/2022 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM AGAINST CC NO.370 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR PETITIONER/CW1: ANURAJI V, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O SUNIL KUMAR K, AVANIYIL, KIZHAKKUMKARA, KALAKKODE P.O, VTC, POOTHAKKULAM P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691302 BY ADVS. ADWAITH SUSEEL YAYATHI VIJAYAN MUKESH KUMAR GANDHI RESPONDENT/STATE & 1ST RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691301 3 SUNIL KUMAR K, AGED 47 YEARS AVANIYIL, KIZHAKKUMKARA, KALAKKODE PO, VTC, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691302 BY ADVS. SHRI.R.SANTHOSH MAHADEVAN C.R.VIJAYAKUMARAN PILLAI SRI. E.C. BINEESH (PP) ADV.R.SANTHOSH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:24594 Crl.M.C No.986/2025 -2- C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ======================= Crl.M.C No.986 of 2025 ======================== Dated this the 14th 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 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 2025:KER:24594 Crl.M.C No.986/2025 -3- 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 Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. B.S.Joshi (supra), along with other cases, were confirmed by the Supreme Court. It is relevant 2025:KER:24594 Crl.M.C No.986/2025 -4- 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, petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.476/2022 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam, now pending as C.C.No.370/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor. The offences alleged are under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner 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 petitioner/defacto complainant, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent 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 petitioner/defacto complainant. The said direction was complied and the statement was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the 2025:KER:24594 Crl.M.C No.986/2025 -5- issues between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner/defacto complainant are settled amicably and that they are residing together harmoniously as husband and wife. The petitioner/defacto complainant therefore has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the 3rd respondent. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, a mutual consent agreement has been executed between the petitioner/defacto complainant and the 3rd respondent as Annexure-C, wherein they would affirm the factum of settlement and their intention not to proceed with the prosecution case. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/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 is convinced that further proceedings against the 3rd respondent will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There 2025:KER:24594 Crl.M.C No.986/2025 -6- 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. This Court also notice that the offence under Section 323 is compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A Final Report, Annexure-B FIR, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.370/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE vdv 2025:KER:24594 Crl.M.C No.986/2025 -7- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 986/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN PARAVOOR POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 476/ 2022 ON THE FILES OF THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PARAVOOR Annexure B THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO. 476 / 2022 AT PARAVOOR POLICE STATION ON THE FILES OF THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PARAVOOR Annexure C THE MUTUAL CONSENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND 3RD RESPONDENT