Kerala High Court
Murukesh vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2025
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:17805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1634/2023 OF Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.895 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MURUKESH
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN,PUTHEN VEETIL HOUSE, KUBHAMVILLA
PALLIVILLA, CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695132
BY ADVS.
MITHUN P.
MERIN THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(STATE) & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 AJINI
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O. THANKAPPAN, KURUPPAZHANJI VEEDU, UCHAKKADA P.O.,
V.T.C. KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTTINKARA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695506
BY ADV HARISHMA P. THAMPI
SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:17805
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.10813 of 2024
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 25th day of February, 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
parties, was taken stock of. The following findings in
B.S.Joshi (supra) are relevant and extracted here below:
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:17805
"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 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
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:17805
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 in Crime No.1634/2023 of Parassala Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as
C.C.No.895/2023 before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara. As per the final
report, 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.
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:17805
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the defacto complainant/2nd
respondent 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 and that
issues between the defacto complainant and the
petitioner have been settled and that they have decided
to dissolve their marriage by way of divorce. The
defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 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-A2, wherein she
would unequivocally state that the disputes have been
amicably settled in mediation. The defacto complainant
would also swear that she has no surviving grievance
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:17805
against the petitioner and that she has no objecton in
quashing the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner. 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/2nd respondent 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
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:17805
process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure
the ends of justice.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.1634/2023 and all
further proceedings in C.C.No.895/2023 before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara,
are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
ska
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:17805
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10813/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO. 1634 OF 2023 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL DISTRICT
Annexure A2 ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.11.2024,
SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
