Amal K A and others v. State of Kerala and Sneha

**2025:KER:23601 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946** **CRL.MC NO. 1945 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.917/2023 OF Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **1 AMAL K A AGED 27 YEARS S/O. ANIL KUMAR, ETTUKANDATHIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682020** **2 ANIL KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS ETTUKANDATHIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682020 3 SINDHU AGED 47 YEARS W/O. ANIL KUMAR, ETTUKANDATHIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682020** **4 AMRITHA AGED 25 YEARS D/O. ANIL KUMAR, ETTUKANDATHIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682020** **BY ADVS. INNOCENT FRANCIS PAPALI P.A.PETER TINTU GEORGE SUJITHA S. MICHAEL VARGHESE P.J.ANTONY JOSEPH MARIADAS K.S.SUDHA** Crl.M.C.No. 1945 of 2025 ..2.. **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:23601** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 SNEHA AGED 27 YEARS** **D/O MODI, KALATHITHARA HOUSE, NEAR LIGHT HOUSE, PUTHUVYPPU, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA, PIN - 682508** ## **BY ADV N.MUHAMMAD SAJU** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **ADV.SANAL P. RAJ – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No. 1945 of 2025 ..3.. **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:23601** **O R D E R** _Dated this the 13[th] day of March, 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_ Crl.M.C.No. 1945 of 2025 ..4.. **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:23601** _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 noncompoundable 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 Crl.M.C.No. 1945 of 2025 **==> picture [59 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:23601** 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 are accused nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.917/2023 of Narakal Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of the entire proceedings in the above crime, 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 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. Crl.M.C.No. 1945 of 2025 **2025:KER:23601** ..6.. **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **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 amicably and that the defacto complainant has decided to reside along with her husband (1st petitioner herein). Therefore, 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 (2[nd] respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled in mediation and a settlement agreement has been executed between the parties on that behalf. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no further complaints against the petitioners and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against them. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. Crl.M.C.No. 1945 of 2025 **2025:KER:23601** **==> picture [59 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Moreover, this Court has also perused Annexure-A2 Compromise Petition filed by the petitioners and 2nd respondent/defacto complainant in M.C.No.50/2023, which also speaks about the amicable settlement between the parties. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 2[nd] 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 Crl.M.C.No. 1945 of 2025 **2025:KER:23601** ..8.. **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** sought for would secure the ends of justice. This Court also notice that the offences under Sections 448 and 506 are 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-A1 F.I.R. and all further proceedings in Crime No.917/2023 of the Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam, are hereby quashed. Sd/- **C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE** TR Crl.M.C.No. 1945 of 2025 **2025:KER:23601** ..9.. **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1945/2025** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** |**Annexure A1**|**THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ALONG**| |---|---| ||**WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE DEFACTO**| ||**COMPLAINANT**| |**Annexure A2**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DRAWN**| ||**BETWEEN THE PARTIES BEFORE THE**| ||**MEDIATION AND WHICH HAS BEEN FILED IN**| ||**MC 50/2023 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE**| ||**JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,**| ||**NJARACKAL**| |**Annexure A3**|**THE AFFIDAVIT SO SWORN BY THE DEFACTO**| ||**COMPLAINANT, THE SECOND RESPONDENT**| ||**DT.4/2/2025**|