CRL.MC NO. 2156 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:25044 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 2156 OF 2025 CRIME NO.131/2024 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION, KASARGODE, Kasargod AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.282 OF 2024 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,KASARAGOD PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1&2: 1 ABDHUL RAHMAN MUNAZIL AGED 30 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED ASHARAF, MUZAMMIL HOUSE,PADINJAR, THALANKARA WEST, THALANKARA VILLAGE, KASARAGODE KASARAGODE DIST, PIN - 671122 2 SAHEEDA AGED 55 YEARS W/O MUHAMMED ASHARAF, MUZAMMIL HOUSE,PADINJAR, THALANKARA WEST, THALANKARA VILLAGE, KASARAGODE KASARAGODE DIST,, PIN - 671122 BY ADVS. ANIL K.MUHAMED KRISHNAKUMAR G. AJIN SALAM MUHAMMED AFRIN NUHMAN T.T. RESPONDENT/S TATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 NAFEESATH NIHALA THASNEEM C. H AGED 23 YEARS D/O HAMEED SHA, NIHALA MANZIL, CHALA, VIDHYANAGAR,KASARAGODE KARAGODE, PIN - 671123 BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI SR. E.C. BINEESH (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25044 Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2025 :2: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th 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 2025:KER:25044 Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2025 :3: 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 power of quashing on the ground that it 2025:KER:25044 Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2025 :4: 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. 2025:KER:25044 Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2025 :5: 3. In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.131 of 2024 of Vanitha Police Station, Kasaragod, now pending as C.C.No.282/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. As per the final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 85 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 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 defacto complainant/respondent no.2 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 2025:KER:25044 Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2025 :6: that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled amicably and that the defacto complainant and the 1st petitioner are residing together comfortably as husband and wife at the matrimonial house. Therefore, 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-2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no surviving 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 the settlement arrived at is genuine 2025:KER:25044 Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2025 :7: and bonafide. Learned counsel for the 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. This Court also notice that offence under Section 115(2) is compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the 2025:KER:25044 Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2025 :8: parties. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-1 Final Report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.282/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE. ska 2025:KER:25044 Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2025 :9: APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2156/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C NO: 282 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT Annexure2 AN AFFIDAVIT DTD:- 08/ 02/ 2025 SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT