Kerala High Court
Francy Sunny vs State Of Kerala on 24 March, 2025
CRL.MC NO. 10611 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:25899
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. 10611 OF 2024
CRIME NO.451/2022 OF Melukkavu Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.288 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,ERATTUPETTA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 FRANCY SUNNY
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SUNNY, CHOLLANANICKAL HOUSE,
KURUMMANNOOR PO, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686572
2 ANTO SUNNY
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SUNNY, CHOLLANANICKAL HOUSE,
KURUMMANNOOR PO, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686572
BY ADV TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MELUKAVU POLICE STATION, MELUKAVUMATTAM,
KOTTAYAM DIST KERALA, PIN - 686652
CRL.MC NO. 10611 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:25899
3 WRENI STANLEY
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O STANLY JOSEPH, IIIA VALLUVESSERY HOUSE, PUTHUKULAM
KARA, EROOR PO, NADAMA VILLAGE, THRIPUNITHURA ERNAKULAM
DIST, PIN - 682301
BY ADV C.JOSEPH ANTONY
OTHER PRESENT:
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:
CRL.MC NO. 10611 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:25899
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
CRL.MC NO. 10611 OF 2024
------------------------------------
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 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
CRL.MC NO. 10611 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:25899
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
referred to and considered by a three Judges Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
CRL.MC NO. 10611 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:25899
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 are the
accused persons in Crime No.451 of 2022 of Melukkavu
Police Station, Kottayam, now pending as C.C.No.288/2022
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Erattupetta. As per the final report, the offences
alleged are under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The petitioners 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 defacto complainant/3rd
respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused
the records.
CRL.MC NO. 10611 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:25899
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 petitioners and the defacto
complainant are settled and that the 1st petitioner and
the defacto complainant are legally separated. The
defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That
apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an
affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant
(3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-3, wherein she would
unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled
in mediation and that the 1st petitioner and the defacto
complainant have dissolved their marriage by way of
mutual divorce. By virtue of the settlement, all claims
including the custody of the minor child, have been
resolved. The defacto complainant would also swear that
she has no grievance against the petitioners and that
she has no objection in quashing the criminal
CRL.MC NO. 10611 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:25899
proceedings against the petitioners. 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/3rd 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 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.
CRL.MC NO. 10611 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:25899
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure-1 FIR, Annexure-2 Final Report in Crime No.451
of 2022 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.288/2022
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Erattupetta, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
ska
CRL.MC NO. 10611 OF 2024 9 2025:KER:25899
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10611/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO
451/2022 OF MELUKAVU POLICE STATION DATED
17.05.2022 WITH ITS LEGIBLE COPY
Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO 451/2022 OF MELUKAVU POLICE STATION DATED
17.05.2022 WITH ITS LEGIBLE COPY
Annexure 3 A COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2024
