Kerala High Court
Jayakumar vs State Of Kerala on 17 January, 2025
2025:KER:3901
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 27TH POUSHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 10530 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1065/2022 OF Puthencruz Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.367 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KOLENCHERRY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JAYAKUMAR
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O SUKUMARAN, MOOSARIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PANCODE PO, AIKKARANADU, PUTHENCRUZE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682310
BY ADVS.
JOY C. PAUL
BOBBY GEORGE
NOBLE GEORGE
MADHU V.
REJO T.B.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 ANUPAMA
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O JAYAKUMAR MOOSARIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PANCODE PO, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE PUTHENCRUZE, ERNAKULAM
DIST, PIN - 682310
BY ADV
SRI.BIJU P.PAUL
SRI.E.C. BINEESH - PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 10530 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:3901
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
=======================
Crl.M.C No.10530 of 2024
========================
Dated this the 17th day of January, 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:
"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
2025:KER:3901
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
referred to and considered by a three Judges Bench of
2025:KER:3901
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.1065/2022 of Puthencruze Police Station,
Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.367/2022 before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery. The
offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b)
and 506 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.
2025:KER:3901
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 is settled amicably and that they are
living comfortably as husband and wife. 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 3, wherein she would
unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled
amicably and that they are residing together
harmoniously in matrimony as husband and wife. The
defacto complainant would also swear that she has no
grievance against the petitioner and that 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
2025:KER:3901
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
process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure
the ends of justice. This Court also notice that
offence under Section 323 is compoundable, which is all
the more a reason to accept the compromise between the
parties.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure 2 Final report in Crime No. 1065/2022, and all
2025:KER:3901
further proceedings in C.C.No.367/2022 of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
MSA
2025:KER:3901
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10530/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.S AND F.I.R.
IN CRIME NO.1065/2022 OF PUTHENCRUZ
POLICE STATION
Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET
SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO.1065/2022 OF
PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION
Annexure 3 4. THE 2ND RESPONDENT FILED AN AFFIDAVIT
DATED 19/11/2024 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE
COURT REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT
