Full Judgment
CRL.MC NO. 1176 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:18230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 1176 OF 2025 CRIME NO.101/2024 OF Payyannur Police Station, Kannur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.611 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PAYYANNUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 RANJITH KUMAR KV AGED 35 YEARS S/O BALAN TV, KAYATH VALAPPIL HOUSE,MANAKKADI, PAYYANURAMSOM DESAM, PAYYANUR TALUK, KANNUR, PIN - 2 RAJITHA AGED 38 YEARS D/O BALAN TV, KAYATH VALAPPIL HOUSE,MANAKKADI, PAYYANURAMSOM DESAM, PAYYANUR TALUK, KANNUR, PIN - 670307 BY ADVS. ASWANTH P.T. MANUEL P.J. RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 CRL.MC NO. 1176 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:18230 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PAYYANUR POLICE STATION, [CRIME NO.101 OF 2024 OF PAYYANUR POLICE STATION, PIN - 670307 3 VIJITHA VV AGED 30 YEARS D/O K VIJAYAN, KAIKLAVAN HOUSE, KALEESWARAM TEMPLE ROAD, KANKOLE, PAYYANUR AMSOM DESOM, PAYYANUR TALUK KANNUR, PIN - 670307 BY ADV AKSHAYA SUNIL OTHER PRESENT: SMT. C. SEENA (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 1176 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:18230
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.1176 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 27th day of February, 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. 1176 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:18230
“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 CRL.MC NO. 1176 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:18230
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.
3. In the facts at hand, petitioners are the
accused persons in Crime No.101/2024 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur, now pending as C.C.No.611/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyanur. As per the final report, the offence alleged is under Section 498A 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, CRL.MC NO. 1176 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:18230 learned counsel for the defacto complainant/3rd respondent 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 that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled and that 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 (3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-A(IV), wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled amicably. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioners and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The affidavit is
CRL.MC NO. 1176 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:18230 sworn to on her free will. 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 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.
CRL.MC NO. 1176 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:18230 In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A(I) FIR, Annexure-A(II) Final Report in Crime No.101/2024 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.611/2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyanur, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE ska CRL.MC NO. 1176 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:18230 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1176/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A(I) CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R. AND F.I.S. IN CRIME NO.101 OF 2024 OF PAYYANUR POLICE STATION REGISTERED BY SECOND RESPONDENT Annexure A(II) CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C NO. MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANUR Annexure A(III) CERTIFIED COPY OF MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN C.C NO. MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANUR Annexure A(IV) THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT