Kerala High Court
Jibin Sebastian vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2025
Crl.M.C.No.550 of 2025
1
2025:KER:12844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025/21ST MAGHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 550 OF 2025
CRIME NO.736/2022 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.123 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, PERAMBRA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JIBIN SEBASTIAN, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH DEVASSIA, ARACKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, |
VANDANPATHAL, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, MUNDAKAYAM,
R.P. COLONY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686513
BY ADV.SARITHA THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SONIYA SEBASTIAN, AGED 38 YEARS
D/O SEBASTIAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, UNNIKULAM P.O.,
THALAYAD, THAMASSERY TALUK,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673574
BY ADV SAHL ABDUL KADER
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.550 of 2025
2
2025:KER:12844
O R D E R
Dated, this the 10th day of February, 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.
There may be many reasons for not supporting the
2025:KER:12844
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 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
2025:KER:12844
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.736/2022 of Balussery Police Station, Kozhikode, now
pending as C.C.No.123/2023 before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Perambra. The offences alleged are under
Section 498A and 406 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 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
2025:KER:12844
the same, it is clear that the issues have been
settled amicably and that the defacto complainant has no
intention to prosecute the case any more. 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-A3, wherein she would
unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and
that they have decided to live together peacefully. The
defacto complainant would also swear that she has no
objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner and that the affidavit is sworn to on her free
will. Moreover, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent would
submit that the relief sought for herein be allowed, in view
of the settlement between the parties. This Court is
therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine
and bonafide.
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
2025:KER:12844
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 offence under Section
406 is compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept
the compromise between the parties.
7. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure-A1 F.I.R, Annexure-A2 Final Report, and all further
proceedings in C.C.No.123/2023 of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Perambra, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww
2025:KER:12844
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR DATED 01/12/2022
IN CRIME NO. 736/2022 OF BALUSSERY
POLICE STATION ALONG WITH FIS
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
31/01/2023 FOLLOWED BY ANNEXURE-A1
ANNEXURE A3 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED 05/07/2024
SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
