Kerala High Court
Satheesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2025
2025:KER:11479
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. 1034 OF 2024
CRIME NO.2309/2015 OF Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta
AGAINST CC NO.1942 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS , ADOOR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3:
1 SATHEESH KUMAR
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLA PAVITHRAM HOUSE, MUDIYOOR KONAM
P.O. PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689501
2 THANKAPPAN PILLAI
AGED 76 YEARS
S/O NARAYANA PILLA, PAVITHRAM HOUSE MUDIYOOR KONAM P.O,
PANDALAM VILLAGE,ADOOR TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689501
3 VIJAYAKUMARI
AGED 72 YEARS
W/O THANKAPPAN PILLAI, PAVITHRAM HOUSE MUDIYOOR KONAM
P.O, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689501
BY ADV AJEESH K.SASI
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 AISWARYA B.NATH
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O BHUVANENDRA NATH .C, T.C.56/1088 VARUVILAKATHU
HOUSE, NEDUMKAD, KARAMANA P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695002
Crl.M.C.No. 1034 of 2024
..2..
2025:KER:11479
BY ADV.SREELAKSHMI SABU - R2
ADV.E.C.BINEESH - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
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. 1034 of 2024
..3..
2025:KER:11479
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 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 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
..4..
2025:KER:11479
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 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
..5..
2025:KER:11479
[(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 are accused nos.1 to
3 in Crime No.2309/2015 of Pandalam Police Station,
Pathanamthitta, now pending as C.C.No.1942/2016 before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. The offence
alleged is under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The
petitioners seek quashment of the 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
..6..
2025:KER:11479
direction was complied and the statement was handed over.
On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between
the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled and
that the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant are
legally separated by way of divorce. Furthermore, the
defacto complainant is remarried and that she is not any
more interested to continue with the prosecution case. The
defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners and that the
settlement arrived at is on her own volition, without any
compulsion, whatsoever. Moreover, this Court has also
perused Annexure-3 Mediation agreement filed by the 1 st
petitioner/1st accused and 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant, which also speaks about the amicable
settlement between the parties. This Court is therefore
convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and
bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought
for can be allowed.
..7..
2025:KER:11479
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.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-2
Final Report and all further proceedings in
C.C.No.1942/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Adoor, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
TR
..8..
2025:KER:11479
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.2309/2015 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION
DATED 16.12.2015.
Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO.1942/2016 PENDING ON THE FILES
OF THE THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST-
CLASS MAGISTRATE- ADOOR IN CRIME NO.
2309/2015 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION
DATED 5.1.2016
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT
DATED 28.06.2016 ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN
THE 1ST PETITIONER AND THE SECOND
RESPONDENT HEREIN AT DISTRICT MEDIATION
CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA.
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.
(HMA)NO.563/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT
PATHANAMTHITTA, DATED 17.01.2017.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY
THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 23/12/2024.
