CRL.MC NO. 8485 OF 2023 1 2025:KER:24705 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 8485 OF 2023 CRIME NO.303/2023 OF Vilappilssala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.611 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KATTAKADA PETITIONER//ACCUSED: RAJEEV.S. AGED 34 YEARS S/O SASIDHARAN NAIR, RESIDED AT SUDHEER BHAVAN, BHAJANAMADOM ROAD, PEYAD, PEYAD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695573, NOW RESIDING AT MOOKAMBIKA KRIPA, CHAYAKUDI LANE, PETTAH, PETTAH.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 695024 BY ADV RAJESH P.NAIR RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION, VILAPPILSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695573 CRL.MC NO. 8485 OF 2023 2 2025:KER:24705 3 SWATHY.M.S. AGED 32 YEARS W/O RAJEEV.S., RESIDING AT SUDHEER BHAVAN, BHAJANAMADOM ROAD, PEYAD, PEYAD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695573 BY ADVS. K.KUSUMAM KUNJURAMAN P.T.MARY(K/756/2012) K.KALESH(K/804/2014) ACHUTHAN K.(K/1363/2020) OTHER PRESENT: SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 8485 OF 2023 3 2025:KER:24705 C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.8485 of 2023 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 10th 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: CRL.MC NO. 8485 OF 2023 4 2025:KER:24705 “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. 8485 OF 2023 5 2025:KER:24705 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, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.303/2023 of Vilappilsala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as C.C.No.611/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada. As per the final report, the offence alleged is under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks 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 petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/3rd respondent and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. CRL.MC NO. 8485 OF 2023 6 2025:KER:24705 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 petitioner and the defacto complainant are settled and that they are divorced. The defacto complainant is no longer interested to pursue the prosecution case and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 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), wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled, pursuant to which they have filed a compromise petition in OP(G&W).1420/2023 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the prosecution case against the petitioners CRL.MC NO. 8485 OF 2023 7 2025:KER:24705 and that affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant/3rd 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 petitioner 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. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. CRL.MC NO. 8485 OF 2023 8 2025:KER:24705 Annexure-A FIR, Annexure-C Final Report in Crime No.303/2023 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.611/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE ska CRL.MC NO. 8485 OF 2023 9 2025:KER:24705 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8485/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.303/2023 OF THE VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT DATED 01.03.2023 Annexure B O.P. (G&W) NO.1420/2023 (RE-FILED FROM O.P. (G&W) 1761/2023) DATED 06.02.2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, NEYYATTINKARA Annexure C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KATTAKADA IN C.C. NO.611/2023 WHICH ARISE FROM CRIME NO.303/2023 OF THE VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT DATED 30.4.2023 Annexure D ORIGINAL NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.8.2024