CRL.MC NO. 1994 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:25016 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. 1994 OF 2025 CRIME NO.11/2024 OF Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.173 OF 2024 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,MANJERI PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3: 1 NAJEEB K.P. AGED 30 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED, KOLLAPARAMBAN HOUSE, KIZHAKKETHALA, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676121 2 MOHAMMED K AGED 68 YEARS S/O. HYDRU, KOLLAPARAMBAN HOUSE, KIZHAKKETHALA, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676121 3 FATHIMA P.C. AGED 58 YEARS W/O. MOHAMMED, KOLLAPARAMBAN HOUSE, KIZHAKKETHALA, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676121 BY ADV K.RAKESH RESPONDENT S / STATE, COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676121 2025:KER:25016 Crl.M.C.No.1994 of 2025 :2: 3 ARATHI V AGED 29 YEARS D/O. RAMACHANDRAN, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, EDIVENNA P.O., AKAMPADAM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679329 BY ADV KIRAN THOMAS SRI. E.C. BINEESH (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25016 Crl.M.C.No.1994 of 2025 :3: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.1994 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th 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 parties, was taken stock of. The following findings in B.S.Joshi (supra) are relevant and extracted here 2025:KER:25016 Crl.M.C.No.1994 of 2025 :4: 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 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 2025:KER:25016 Crl.M.C.No.1994 of 2025 :5: 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 persons in Crime No.11/2024 of Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram, now pending as C.C.No.173/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A and 323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2025:KER:25016 Crl.M.C.No.1994 of 2025 :6: 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 3rd 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 the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled and that the defacto complainant is disinterested to prosecute the case 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 (3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-B, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been 2025:KER:25016 Crl.M.C.No.1994 of 2025 :7: settled out of the Court and that she does not intend to pursue the prosecution case, any further. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and 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 the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 3rd 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 2025:KER:25016 Crl.M.C.No.1994 of 2025 :8: 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 in Crime No.11/2024, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.173/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE. ska 2025:KER:25016 Crl.M.C.No.1994 of 2025 :9: APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1994/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH ALL DOCUMENTS IN CRIME NO.11/2024 OF THE MANJERI POLICE STATION DATED 20-02-2024 Annexure B THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8-1-2025