BY AD vs S.K.SAJI

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM, PIN - 682031 HARSHA V KRISHNAN AGED 31 YEARS D/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SANTHI BHAVAN, THATHAMMUNNA MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690504 BY ADVS. S.K.SAJI MAYAMOL T.S. G.R.MANJU E C BINEESH.PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.2070 of 2025 :2: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.2070 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2025 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2070 of 2025 :3: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2070 of 2025 :4: 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 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.1016/2020 of Nooranad Police Station, Alappuzha, now pending as C.C.No.920/2020 Crl.M.C.No.2070 of 2025 :5: before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 294(b) and 506(i) 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 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Senior 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 petitioner and the defacto complainant are settled and that they are divorced. Furthermore, the defacto complainant is remarried and has no interest in pursuing the Crl.M.C.No.2070 of 2025 :6: prosecution case, any further. The instant Crl.M.C was filed with the knowledge of the defacto complainant, wherefore, 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 (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that she has secured a divorce from the Family Court, Mavelikkara. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioner and that she has no objection in quashing the case against the petitioner. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. Crl.M.C.No.2070 of 2025 :7:

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. This Court also notice that the offence under Section 506(i) is compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No. Crl.M.C.No.2070 of 2025 :8: and all further proceedings in C.C.No.920/2020 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara, are hereby quashed. Raj. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE. Crl.M.C.No.2070 of 2025 :9: APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2070/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1016/2020 DATED 25.08.2020 OF THE NOORANADU POLICE STATION ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT IN C.C. 920/2020 BEFORE THE JFCM-II COURT.MAVELIKARA Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/ SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.2025