2025:KER:23113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 1477 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1108/2024 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 AMEEN MUHAMMED AGED 34 YEARS THACHAVALLATH HOUSE, MANTHRAKKAL JUNCTION, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683106 2 BASHEER AGED 60 YEARS THACHAVALLATH HOUSE, MANTHRAKKAL JUNCTION, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683106 3 RAMLA BASHEER AGED 55 YEARS THACHAVALLATH HOUSE, MANTHRAKKAL JUNCTION, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683106 BY ADVS. V.M.RIYAS P.M.MUJEEB RAHIMAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 SHIRIN SHAHANA AGED 26 YEARS D/O ABDUL LATHEEF, PALLAKKAL HOUSE, POTTACHAAL NAGAR, CHANGAMBUZHA NAGAR, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANNAYANUR THALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682021 Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2025 2025:KER:23113 - 2 - BY ADVS. SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP) SMT.SUMAIAH M KOYA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2025 2025:KER:23113 - 3 - C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 17th 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 Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2025 2025:KER:23113 - 4 - 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 Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2025 2025:KER:23113 - 5 - 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.1108/2024 of Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 420, 506, 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above crime, 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. 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 sent via e-mail, Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2025 2025:KER:23113 - 6 - was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled and that the defacto complainant and the 1st petitioner have decided to get legally separated. 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-A2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that she does not intend to continue with the prosecution case against the petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her free will. 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 Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2025 2025:KER:23113 - 7 - 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 offences under Sections 420, 506 and 509 are 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-A1 FIR in Crime No.1108/2024 of Kalamassery Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN SKP JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2025 2025:KER:23113 - 8 - APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1477/2025 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 1108/2024 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DATED 13/12/2024 ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 3/2/2025 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE