Kerala High Court
Rajesh.C vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
2025:KER:292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 16TH POUSHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 9168 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1275/2009 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM IN CC NO.172
OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALUVA
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
1 RAJESH.C
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.K.P. RAGHAVAN (LATE), RAJI NIVAS, PARUTHIPRA,
SHORNUR, PALAKKAD., PIN - 679121
BY ADV A.P.LALY @ LALY VINCENT
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 DHANYA
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O.SARASWATHY, VADAKKUMUKKIL HOUSE, THURUTHU DESOM,
CHENGAMAND VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 683101
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SMT. R.REMA MENON FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:292
Crl.M.C.No.9168 of 2024
-2-
ORDER
Dated, this the 06th day of January, 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
2025:KER:292
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 [(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:292
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 1 st accused in
Crime No.1275/2009 of Aluva East Police Station, Ernakulam,
now pending as C.C.No.172/2014 before the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva. As per the final report,
the offences alleged are under Section 498A and 34 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 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 the issues between the
petitioner and the defacto complainant are settled in
2025:KER:292
Court mediation and the entire amount stipulated in the
mediaiton agreement has been fully disbursed. 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 (2 nd respondent herein)
as Annexure 9, wherein she would unequivocally state that
the disputes have been settled in mediation and that
Rs.6,00,000/- stipulated in the agreement has been given.
The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no
surviving grievance against the petitioner and that the
affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any
compulsion, whatsoever. Learned Counsel for the 2 nd
respondent would 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
2025:KER:292
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 4
FIR in Crime No.1275/2009, Annexure 5 Final Report and all
further proceedings in C.C.No.172/2014 of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SKP/06-01
2025:KER:292
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P.NO. 1442 OF
2009 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT,
ERNAKULAM DATED 21.07.2012.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
MEDIATION CONDUCTED BY THE DISTRICT
MEDIATION CENTRE, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2013
IN O.P.NO. 1484/2009 PASSED BY THE FAMILY
COURT, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.1275/2009
OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME
NO.1275/2009 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2009
IN B.A.NO. 4607 OF 2009 ON THE FILES OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
ANNEXURE 7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE
MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 22.12.2023.
ANNEXURE 8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2024 IN
CRL.M.C.NO. 2498 OF 2023 PASSED BY THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
ANNEXURE 9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.10.2024.
ANNEXURE 9(A) ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 24.11.2024.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
