Kerala High Court

Vijayaraghavan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 24 March, 2025

                                                                 2025:KER:26644




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

       MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947

                          CRL.MC NO. 2212 OF 2022

           AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.494 OF 2021 OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHITTUR


PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3:

       1       VIJAYARAGHAVAN NAIR
               AGED 79 YEARS
               S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, HOUSE NO. 198, LOWER ATTADI,
               KUNOOR (1) P.O, NELGIRI, TAMIL NADU., PIN - 643101
       2       GEETHA
               AGED 71 YEARS
               W/O. VIJAYARAGHAVAN NAIR, HOUSE NO. 198, LOWER
               ATTADI, KUNOOR (1) P.O, NELGIRI,
               TAMIL NADU., PIN - 643101
               BY ADVS.
               A.T.ANILKUMAR
               V.SHYLAJA

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
           ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
     2     SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
           CHITTOOR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD., PIN - 678001
     3     SOUMYA
           AGED 36 YEARS
           D/O. PARAKKATTU LINE, HARI NIVAS, THATHAMANGALAM,
           CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD., PIN - 678101
           BY ADVS.
           RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY Nair
           VIJINA K.(K/229/2016)
           ARUL MURALIDHARAN(K/000853/2018)

THIS       CRIMINAL   MISC.   CASE   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION   ON

24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                     2025:KER:26644

Crl.M.C.No.2212 of 2022 &
Crl.M.C.No.2635 of 2023
                                    :2:


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

    MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947

                          CRL.MC NO. 2635 OF 2023

    CRIME NO.0142/2021 OF Chittur Police Station, Palakkad

        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.494 OF 2021

OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHITTUR


PETITIONERS/1ST ACCUSED:
          ASHOK.V.NAIR
          AGED 46 YEARS
          S/O. VIJAYARAGHAVAN NAIR, HOUSE NO. 198, LOWER
          ATTADI, KUNOOR (1) P.O, NELGIRI, TAMIL NADU, PIN -
          643101
          BY ADVS.
          A.T.ANILKUMAR
          V.SHYLAJA

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
    2     SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
          CHITTOOR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
    3     SOUMYA
          AGED 36 YEARS
          D/O. PARAKKATTU LINE, HARI NIVAS, THATHAMANGALAM,
          CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD,PIN - 678101
          BY ADVS.
          RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY Nair
          VIJINA K.(K/229/2016)
          ARUL MURALIDHARAN(K/000853/2018)
          SMT. SEENA C (PP)

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                             2025:KER:26644

Crl.M.C.No.2212 of 2022 &
Crl.M.C.No.2635 of 2023
                                        :3:


                   C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
                 ------------------------------------
       Crl.M.C.Nos.2212 of 2022 & 2635 of 2023
                 ------------------------------------
           Dated this the 24th day of March, 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 2025:KER:26644

Crl.M.C.No.2212 of 2022 &

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 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 2025:KER:26644

Crl.M.C.No.2212 of 2022 &

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 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, petitioners in

Crl.M.C No.2212/2022 are the accused nos.2 and 3 and

the petitioner in Crl.M.C No.2635/2023 is the 1st 2025:KER:26644

Crl.M.C.No.2212 of 2022 &

accused in Crime No.142/2021 of Chittur Police

Station, Palakkad, now pending as C.C.No.494/2021

before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Chittur. The offences alleged are under Sections

498A, 323 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code. The petitioners in both Crl.M.Cs

seek 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 petitioners,

learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto

complainant and the learned Senior Public

Prosecutor. Perused the records.

5. In both these cases, it is noticed that an

affidavit of the defacto complainant endorsing the

factum of settlement is not appended with the

Crl.M.C. However, the Investigating Officer had 2025:KER:26644

Crl.M.C.No.2212 of 2022 &

recorded the statement of the defacto complainant

(3rd respondent herein), wherein she would

unequivocally state that the issues between the

petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled

and that the defacto complainant and the 1st

petitioner are living separately. Furthermore, their

first child is residing with the 1st petitioner,

while the second child is residing with the defacto

complainant. The 1st petitioner has also consented

to provide maintenance for both the defacto

complainant and the second child, wherefore, she has

no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings

against the petitioners. Moreover, this Court has

also perused a mediation agreement executed by and

between defacto complainant and the 1st petitioner,

appended to Crl.M.C 2635/2023, wherein they would

affirm the amicable settlement between them and

their decision to dissolve their marital tie by way

of mutual divorce, after fulfilling the terms of the 2025:KER:26644

Crl.M.C.No.2212 of 2022 &

settlement agreement. This Court is therefore

convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine

and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 3rd

respondent/defacto complainant 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

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 2025:KER:26644

Crl.M.C.No.2212 of 2022 &

justice. This Court also notice that the offences

under Sections 323 and 506(ii) are compoundable,

which is all the more a reason to accept the

compromise between the parties.

          In                the                circumstances,              the

Crl.M.C.Nos.2212/2022               and        2635/2023    are      allowed.

Annexure-C Final Report in Crime No.142/2021 and all

further proceedings in C.C.No.494/2021 before the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur, as

against the petitioners/accused, are hereby quashed.

sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

Raj.

2025:KER:26644

Crl.M.C.No.2212 of 2022 &

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO. 0142/2021 DATED 19.04.2021.