Crl.M.C.No.10337 of 2023 1 2025:KER:27378 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 10337 OF 2023 CRIME NO.1797/2021 OF CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.731 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2 AND 3: 1 AJITH JOSE VARGHESE AGED 30 YEARS S/O. JOSE VARGHESE, VETTATHETTU AJITH VILLAGE, OMALOOR PO, KERALA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647 2 BIJI JOSE VARGHESE AGED 56 YEARS W/O.JOSE, C8, TYPE 2 ESI COLONY SECTOR 15, ROHINI, DELHI, INDIA, PIN - 110001 3 JOSE VARGHESE AGED 64 YEARS S/O. V.J.VARGHESE, C8, TYPE 2 ESI COLONY SECTOR 15, ROHINI, DELHI, INDIA, PIN - 110001 BY ADVS. ALEX K.JOHN ANIL G. PILLAI Crl.M.C.No.10337 of 2023 2 2025:KER:27378 RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 MIRNNA ELSA THOMAS AGED 26 YEARS D/O. THOMAS V.S., MERI VILLA HOUSE, PATHAMUTTAM P.O., PANACHIKKAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686532 3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, CHINGAVANAM PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686531 BY ADVS. SEENA C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRAYAS JOSEPH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.10337 of 2023 3 2025:KER:27378 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 498-A can be quashed by the High Court exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of B.N.S.S, 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.10337 of 2023 4 2025:KER:27378 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 Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. B.S.Joshi (supra), along with other cases, were Crl.M.C.No.10337 of 2023 5 2025:KER:27378 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 Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1797/2021 of Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam, now pending as C.C.No.731/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanacherry. As per the Final report, the offences alleged are under Section 498-A, 323, 294(b) and 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 Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. Crl.M.C.No.10337 of 2023 6 2025:KER:27378 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 recorded via mail, was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and defacto complainant have been settled in mediation and that she does not intend to prosecute the case any further. The defacto complainant would further state that all her claims have been resolved in the mediation and a settlement agreement has been executed between the parties on that premise. Moreover, the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant have decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual divorce, wherefore, she has no objection in quashing the prosecution case. 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. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no further complaints against the petitioners and that she does not wish to proceed with the Crl.M.C.No.10337 of 2023 7 2025:KER:27378 prosecution case, any further. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. On perusal of mediation agreement produced along with the statement, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant have been settled. Moreover, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the relief sought for herein be allowed, in view of the settlement between the parties. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. 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 Crl.M.C.No.10337 of 2023 8 2025:KER:27378 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. 7. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 F.I.R, Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.731/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanacherry, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww Crl.M.C.No.10337 of 2023 9 2025:KER:27378 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10337/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 07.12.2021 OF CHINGAVANAM POLICE ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE DATED 28.04.2022 IN CRIME NO.1797/2021 OF CHINGAVANAM POLICE ANNEXURE A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT WHO IS THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 19.11.2023