2025:KER:21776 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 1863 OF 2025 CRIME NO.184/2023 OF Chittur Police Station, Palakkad AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.709 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHITTUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1,2 & 3: 1 BASIL MATHEWS AGED 34 YEARS S/O MATHEWS RESIDING AT MANGALATH HOUSE, DAFFODILS, PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER ROAD, ERUVELI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682312 2 ELCY JOHN AGED 62 YEARS W/O. MATHEWS, RESIDING AT MANGALATH HOUSE, DAFFODILS, PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER ROAD, ERUVELI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682312 3 MATHEW, AGED 65 YEARS RESIDING AT MANGALATH HOUSE, DAFFODILS, PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER ROAD, ERUVELI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682312 BY ADVS. MAJIDA.S AJIKHAN.M FIZA HUSSAIN 2025:KER:21776 Crl.M.C.No.1863 of 2025 :2: RESPONDENTS/STATE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 NEETHU RAJ D/O RAJAN.K.PAPPY, AGED 31 YEARS, 14/55, KALEEKKAL HOUSE, ARYAMPALLAM, CHITTUR P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678101 3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHITTOOR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678101 BY ADV M.R.JAYALATHA SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:21776 Crl.M.C.No.1863 of 2025 :3: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.1863 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2025 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 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 2025:KER:21776 Crl.M.C.No.1863 of 2025 :4: 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 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 2025:KER:21776 Crl.M.C.No.1863 of 2025 :5: 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 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 2025:KER:21776 Crl.M.C.No.1863 of 2025 :6: nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.184/2023 of Chittur Police Station, Palakkad, now pending as C.C.No.709/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur. The offence alleged is under Section 498A read with Section 34 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 2nd respondent/defacto complainant 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 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 2025:KER:21776 Crl.M.C.No.1863 of 2025 :7: defacto complainant are settled amicably and that the defacto complainant is no longer interested to proceed with above case. Moreover, the instant Crl.M.C was filed with the knowledge and consent of the defacto complainant, wherefore she 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-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that she does not want to pursue the prosecution case, any further. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioners and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court is therefore convinced that 2025:KER:21776 Crl.M.C.No.1863 of 2025 :8: the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/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 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. 2025:KER:21776 Crl.M.C.No.1863 of 2025 :9: In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No. 184/2023, Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.709/2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE. Raj. 2025:KER:21776 Crl.M.C.No.1863 of 2025 :10: APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1863/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 184/2023 DATED 2/03/2023 Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHITTUR DATED 16/08/2024 Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT