CRL.MC NO. 1400 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:18229 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 1400 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1407/2023 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, Wayanad AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.512 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - I, KALPETTA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1,2 AND 4: 1 ABOOBAKER SIDDIQUE AGED 40 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, MADATHUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, NAIKETTY P.O., NIRAPPAM, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, KUPPADI VILLAGE, WAYANAD DIST.,, PIN - 673592 2 PATHUTTY AGED 58 YEARS W/O. MUHAMMED, MADATHUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, NAIKETTY P.O., NIRAPPAM, KUPPADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DIST., PIN - 673592 3 FASEELA AGED 32 YEARS W/O. ABOOBAKER SIDDIQUE MADATHUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, NAIKETTY P.O., NIRAPPAM, KUPPADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DIST, PIN - 673592 BY ADV CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 CRL.MC NO. 1400 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:18229 2 SHAHANA BANU AGED 32 YEARS W/O. ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE MADATHUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KOLIKKAL, NAIKETTY P.O. NIRAPPAM, WAYANAD DIST.,, PIN - 673592 BY ADV M.R.JAYALATHA OTHER PRESENT: SMT. C. SEENA (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 1400 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:18229 C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.1400 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 27th day of February, 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: CRL.MC NO. 1400 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:18229 “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 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 CRL.MC NO. 1400 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:18229 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.1407/2023 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station, Wayanad, now pending as S.C.No.512/2024 before the Additional Sessions Court-1, Kalpetta, Wayanad. As per the final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015  and Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above Sessions Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by CRL.MC NO. 1400 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:18229 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. 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. The defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 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- D, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that the complaint stemmed from misunderstanding. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection CRL.MC NO. 1400 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:18229 in quashing the case against the petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court has also perused Annexure-C agreement entered into between the defacto complainant and the 1st petitioner, wherein they would state that the marital tie between them has been severed by pronouncement of Talaq, thereby vouching the factum of settlement. 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 CRL.MC NO. 1400 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:18229 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 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-B Final Report in Crime No.1407/2023 and all further proceedings in S.C.No.512/2024 before the Additional Sessions Court-1, Kalpetta, Wayanad, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE ska CRL.MC NO. 1400 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:18229 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1400/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPYOF THE FIR DATED 23/12/2023 OF THE SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATD 30/3/2024 BEFORE THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.12.2024 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT. Annexure D AN ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.12.2024 AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.