Crl.M.C.No.1442 of 2025 -: 1 :- 2025:KER:27608 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 1442 OF 2025 CRIME NO.242/2024 OF KALLADICODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.365 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , MANNARKAD PETITIONER/ACCUSED: RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.GOPINATHA PANICKER, VALAYANADU, PADINJAKKARA, UMMANZHI, KADAMBAZHIPPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678633 BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 2 GEETHA, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.GANGADHARA PANICKER, KORAMANNIL HOUSE, KARAKURISSI P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678595 BY ADVS. ATHUL POULOSE E.C.BINEESH, PUBIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.1442 of 2025 -: 2 :- 2025:KER:27608 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 498-A can be quashed by the High Court exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of B.N.S.S, 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 temperamental differences and Crl.M.C.No.1442 of 2025 -: 3 :- 2025:KER:27608 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 to note that the subject Crl.M.C.No.1442 of 2025 -: 4 :- 2025:KER:27608 matter in B.S.Joshi (supra) was specifically with reference to the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.242/2024 of Kalladikode Police Station, Palakkad, now pending as C.C.No.365/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkad. As per the Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections 498-A and 323 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; learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and the learned 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 Crl.M.C.No.1442 of 2025 -: 5 :- 2025:KER:27608 the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant are amicably settled and that they are living together comfortably as husband and wife. The defacto complainant is not interested to prosecute the case any more and has no objection in quashing the case against her husband/petitioner. 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-C wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled out of the Court and that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are residing together happily. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that she is not interested to prosecute the case any more. The defacto complainant has no more grievances against the petitioner and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Moreover, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Crl.M.C.No.1442 of 2025 -: 6 :- 2025:KER:27608 would submit that the relief sought for herein be allowed, in view of the settlement between the parties. 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. 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. 7. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-B Final Report and all further proceedings in Crl.M.C.No.1442 of 2025 -: 7 :- 2025:KER:27608 C.C.No.365/2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkad, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww Crl.M.C.No.1442 of 2025 -: 8 :- 2025:KER:27608 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1442/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE F.I STATEMENT ALONG WITH FIR IN CRIME NO.242/2024 OF KALLADIKKODE POLICE STATION ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.242/2024 OF KALLADIKKODE POLICE STATION ALONG WITH MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE ANNEXURE C ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.01.2025 SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.