Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1064 (KER)

Sinesh, Son of Sivadasan v. State of Kerala

2025-04-11

C.JAYACHANDRAN

body2025
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 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 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 ] . 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, petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.204/2024 of Beypore Police Station, Kozhikode. As per the FIR, the offence alleged is under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code . The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above Crime, 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 3 rd 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 direction was complied and the statement of the defacto complainant was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the disputes have been settled and that they are residing together harmoniously, wherefore, the defacto complainant is disinterested to proceed with the prosecution case, any further. That apart, it is noticed that along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (3 rd respondent herein) as Annexure-A2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled out of the Court. The defacto complaint would also swear that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant 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. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant 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. 7. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in crime no.204/2024 of Beypore Police Station, Kozhikode and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed.