2025:KER:24374 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. 6871 OF 2024 CRIME NO.747/2020 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM IN CC NO.1318 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 3 AND 4: 1 VINOD K AGED 40 YEARS S/O LATE K.VIJAYAN, VISHNU KRIPA, VRINDAVAN NAGAR, AKATHETHARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678008 2 K.MEENA AGED 59 YEARS W/O LATE K.VIJAYAN, VISHNU KRIPA, VRINDAVAN NAGAR, AKATHETHARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678008 3 VIDHYA K AGED 41 YEARS W/O PREMNATH, NAIVEDYAM HOUSE, PUTHOOR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678005 BY ADVS. BINOY VASUDEVAN SREEJITH SREENATH RINCY KHADER K.V.RAJESWARI SUSHAMA DEVI M. RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 Crl.M.C.No.6871 of 2024 2025:KER:24374 - 2 - 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THRIKKAKKARA POLICE STATION, THRIKKAKARA (PO) ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682021 3 ARATHI D/O ADITHYAN, AGED 38 YEARS, SOBHA NIVAS, KIZHKKEMENAPARAMBU, OLAVANNA P.O., KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673019 BY ADVS. SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RAPHAEL THEKKAN CHRISTINE MATHEW(K/001006/2017) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.6871 of 2024 2025:KER:24374 - 3 - C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.6871 of 2024 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 20th 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: “What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in Crl.M.C.No.6871 of 2024 2025:KER:24374 - 4 - 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 the Hon'ble Crl.M.C.No.6871 of 2024 2025:KER:24374 - 5 - 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 accused nos.1, 3 and 4 in Crime No.747/2020 of Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.1318/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad. As per the final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 498A 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 defacto complainant/3rd respondent and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. Crl.M.C.No.6871 of 2024 2025:KER:24374 - 6 - 5. In this case, it is noticed that an affidavit of the defacto complainant endorsing the factum of settlement is not appended with the Crl.M.C. However, the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the defacto complainant (3rd respondent herein), wherein she would unequivocally state that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled in mediation and that they are divorced, wherefore, she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, this Court also perused Annexure-4 mediation agreement and Annexure-5 agreement executed by the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent, wherein all the claims between the parties have been resolved and they would affirm the factum of settlement. 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 Crl.M.C.No.6871 of 2024 2025:KER:24374 - 7 - 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. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-2 Final Report in Crime No.747/2020 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1318/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, are hereby quashed. The 2nd accused is no more, as per Annexure-3 death certificate, wherefore, the case against him will stand abated. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN SKP JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.6871 of 2024 2025:KER:24374 - 8 - APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6871/2024 PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.747/2020 OF THRIKKAKKARA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.1318/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS OF OTTAPPALAM MUNICIPALITY DATED 26-06-2021 ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION SETTLEMENT DATED 21-11-2023 ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES DATED 07-06-2024 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE