Crl.M.C.No.10427 of 2024 1 2025:KER:25471 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 10427 OF 2024 CRIME NO.230/2021 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.1219 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC) III, THRISSUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2: 1 SHA ALAM YAKUB AGED 29 YEARS S/O. YAKUB KANI, RESIDING AT THAIMADATHIL VEEDU, KADUVAMOOZHI DESOM, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686121 2 PARISHA YAKUB AGED 52 YEARS W/O. YAKUB, RESIDING AT THAIMADATHIL VEEDU, KADUVAMOOZHI DESOM, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686121 BY ADVS. AMALENDU A. SREEHARI V.S. RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 Crl.M.C.No.10427 of 2024 2 2025:KER:25471 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR RURAL, PIN - 680125 3 FEMINA AGED 26 YEARS D/O. ABDUL MANAF, RESIDING AT KODAKARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALIYAPADAM, THEKKUMKARA, KARUPADANNA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680670 BY ADVS. SANAL P. RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANOOP P.PILLAI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.10427 of 2024 3 2025:KER:25471 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 many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that Crl.M.C.No.10427 of 2024 4 2025:KER:25471 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 bonafides.” 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 Crl.M.C.No.10427 of 2024 5 2025:KER:25471 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 and 2 in Crime No.230/2021 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur, now pending as S.C.No.1219/2024 before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thrissur. As per the Additional Final Report produced at Annexure-D, the offences alleged are under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 92 of the Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above Sessions 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 Crl.M.C.No.10427 of 2024 6 2025:KER:25471 direction was complied and the statement of the defacto complainant/3rd respondent 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 she has no objection in quashing 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-E, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that she has no further complaints against the petitioners. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that she is not interested to continue with the prosecution case. The affidavit is sworn to on her free will. Moreover, learned counsel for the 3rd 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. Crl.M.C.No.10427 of 2024 7 2025:KER:25471 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. 7. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A F.I.R, Annexure-B Final Report, Annexure-D additional Final Report, and all further proceedings in S.C.No.1219/2024 before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thrissur, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww Crl.M.C.No.10427 of 2024 8 2025:KER:25471 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10427/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 02.03.2021 IN CRIME NO. 230/2021 OF THE IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR RURAL ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO. 672/2021 DATED 18.06.2021 IN CRIME NO. 230/2021 OF THE IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED U/S 173(8) BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ANNEXURE D CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL FINAL REPORT NO.917/22 DATED 19.11.2021 ANNEXURE E AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL PENDING DISPUTES IN CRIME NO.230/2021 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, PENDING AS SC NO.1219/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT – III, THRISSUR