Kerala High Court
Vishnu vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2025
Crl.M.C.No.2988 of 2025
- 1 -
2025:KER:32427
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 2988 OF 2025
CRIME NO.2005/2023 OF Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.180 OF 2024 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 VISHNU
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. SASIDHARAN, LEKSHMI VILASAM, MANAKKARA,
SASTHAMCOTTA, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 690521
2 PADMINI
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. SASIDHARAN, LEKSHMI VILASAM, MANAKKARA,
SASTHAMCOTTA, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM., PIN - 690521
3 RAJALEKSHMI
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O. SUDHEESHKUMAR, CHARUVILAYIL, 10, MONNALAM, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN - 691523
BY ADVS.
JUSTINE JACOB
SUMESH P.S.
MERIN JOSE
MALAVIKA RADHAKRISHNAN
Crl.M.C.No.2988 of 2025
- 2 -
2025:KER:32427
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 ASHWATHY,
D/O.RAJENDRAN, ASHWATHY BHAVANAM, PANAPETTY,
SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM , KERALA, PIN - 690520
BY ADV JOSEPH SHANSTON
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. E.C. BINEESH (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.2988 of 2025
- 3 -
2025:KER:32427
O R D E R
Dated, this the 11th day of April, 2025
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.
- 4 -
2025:KER:32427
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]. B.S.Joshi (supra), along with other
- 5 -
2025:KER:32427
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.2005/2023 of Sasthamcotta Police Station,
Kollam, now pending as C.C.No.180/2024 before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta. As per the
Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections 498-A
and 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 2nd 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
- 6 -
2025:KER:32427
complainant was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is
clear that the disputes have been amicably settled in Court
mediation and that 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 (2nd
respondent herein) as Annexure-3, wherein she would
unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and
that she does not intend to proceed further with the
prosecution case. The defacto complaint would also swear
that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioners
and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal
proceedings 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 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
- 7 -
2025:KER:32427
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-1 FIR in Crime No.2005 of 2023, Annexure-2 Final
report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.180/2024 of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta,
are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
ska
- 8 -
2025:KER:32427
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.
2005/2023 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION
Annexure 2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 2005/2023 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE
STATION
Annexure 3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
