Kerala High Court
Mahesh Dayal vs Megha Dayal on 8 April, 2025
2025:KER:31320
Crl.MC.No.9807 of 2024
:1:
0IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9807 OF 2024
CRIME NO.683/2023 OF Kongad Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.931 OF 2023
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
1 MAHESH DAYAL
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O SASI KUMAR, MOZHIKUNNAM NOCHUPULLI.P.O,
MUNDUR,PALAKKAD,KERALA, PIN - 678592
2 SASI KUMAR
AGED 70 YEARS
F/O MAHESH, MOZHIKUNNAM HO,NOCHUPULLI.P.O,
MUNDUR,PALAKKAD, KERALA,, PIN - 678592
3 MADHUBALA
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O SASIKUMAR, MOZHIKUNNAMHO, NOCHUPULLI.P.O,
MUNDUR.PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678592
BY ADV ABRAHAM SAMSON
RESPONDENT/DE-FACTOCOMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 MEGHA DAYAL
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O DAYAL BABU, MOZHIKUNNAM HOUSE,NOCHIPULLI P.O,
MUNDUR, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678592
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV LOVELY SAMSON
SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31320
Crl.MC.No.9807 of 2024
:2:
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
Crl.MC.No.9807 of 2024
------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th 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:31320
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
2025:KER:31320
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
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
2025:KER:31320
persons in Crime No.683 of 2023 of Kongad Police
Station, Palakkad, now pending as C.C.No.931 of 2023
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Palakkad. The offence alleged is under Section 498A,
read with Section 34 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,
learned counsel for the 1st 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 statements
of the defacto complainant and her father/CW2 were
handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear
2025:KER:31320
that the issues between the petitioners, the defacto
complainant and her father are settled amicably and
that the defacto complainant and the 1st petitioner
are legally separated. Therefore, the defacto
complainant and her father have 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 (1st respondent herein) as
Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state
that the disputes have been settled and that she is
not interested to proceed further with the
prosecution case. The defacto complainant would also
swear that she has no grievance against the
petitioners and that she has no objection in
quashing the case against the petitioners. 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
2025:KER:31320
and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 1st
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
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.
2025:KER:31320
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is
allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.683 of 2023,
Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings
in C.C.No.931 of 2023 of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
Raj.
2025:KER:31320
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO.
683/2023 PENDING BEFORE JFCM COURT -
II, PALAKKAD
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.
NO. 175/2023 PENDING BEFORE JFCM COURT
-II, PALAKKAD
Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT DATED
25.10.2024
