Kerala High Court
Ranjith vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2025
2025:KER:30904
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1029 OF 2025
CRIME NO.987/2021 OF Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad,
Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.118 OF
2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:
RANJITH
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.VISWANATHAN, SOWPARANIKA, VIJAYANAGAR,
THANAV, OLAVAKKODE,, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678002
BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 NEETHU S MENON
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O. SATHEESAN, NEST, SASTRI NAGAR, KANJIKODE
WEST, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678623
SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:30904
Crl.MC.No.1029 of 2025
:2:
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
Crl.MC.No.1029 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of April, 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
2025:KER:30904
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
2025:KER:30904
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 person in Crime No.987 of 2021 of Kasaba
2025:KER:30904
Police Station, Palakkad, now pending as C.C.No.118
of 2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Palakkad. The offence alleged is under
Section 498A 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 in mediation and
that they are divorced. The defacto complainant has
2025:KER:30904
no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings
against the petitioner and that she 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 (2nd respondent herein) as
Annexure-2, wherein she would unequivocally state
that the disputes have been settled and that she has
no intention to proceed further with the prosecution
case. The defacto complainant would also swear that
she has no grievance against the petitioner and that
she has no objection in quashing the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner. The affidavit is
sworn to on her own volition, without any
compulsion, whatsoever. Moreover, this Court has
also perused Annexure-3 settlement agreement
executed by and between the defacto complainant and
the petitioner, wherein they would reiterate the
factum of settlement. This Court is therefore
convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine
2025:KER:30904
and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 2nd
respondent/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
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.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is
allowed. Annexure-1 Final Report and all further
2025:KER:30904
proceedings in C.C.No.118 of 2022 before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad,
are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
Raj.
2025:KER:30904
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO.118/2022 OF THE COURT OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I,
PALAKKAD ALONG WITH STATEMENTS OF THE
CRIME WITNESSES
Annexure 2 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.01.2025 SWORN
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
09.12.2024 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER WITH 2ND RESPONDENT
