Anoop C.P., Devi and Babu v. State of Kerala

``` 1 2025:KER:18227 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1042 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1042 OF 2025 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.162 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VADAKARA ``` ## `PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:` ``` 1ANOOP C.P. AGED 35 YEARS S/O BABU, C.P.HOUSE (CHEELUPARAMBATHU), CHEMMARTHOOR P.O, KOTTAPALLY VILLAGE, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673104 2DEVI AGED 59 YEARS W/O BABU, AGED 59 YEARS, C.P. HOUSE, (CHEELUPARAMBATHU), CHEMMARTHOOR P.O, KOTTAPALLY VILLAGE, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673104 3BABU AGED 65 YEARS S/O LATE CHATHU, C.P.HOUSE, (CHEELUPARAMBATHU), CHEMMARTHOOR P.O, KOTTAPALLY VILLAGE, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673104 ``` ## `BY ADV VIMAL BHASKAR` ## `RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:` ``` 1XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1042 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2 2025:KER:18227 ``` ``` 2STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY ADV J.ABHILASH ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SMT. C. SEENA (PP) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 3 2025:KER:18227 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1042 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. -----------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.1042 of 2025 ------------------------------------`** `Dated, this thE 27th day of February, 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: ``` ``` 4 2025:KER:18227 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1042 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` “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 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 inB.S.Joshi (supra) was doubted along with that laid down in other cases and referred to and considered by a three Judges Bench of ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` CRL.MC NO. 1042 OF 2025 ``` ``` 5 2025:KER:18227 ``` ``` the Hon'ble Supreme Court inGian 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 inB.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 C.C.No.162/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara. As per the final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 406 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/1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` CRL.MC NO. 1042 OF 2025 ``` ``` 6 2025:KER:18227 ``` ``` 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 out of the Court and that the defacto complainant is no longer interested to proceed with the prosecution case. 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 (1[st] respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that the complaint emanated from sudden anger and difference of opinion. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioners and that the 1[st] petitoner and the defacto complainant have decided to file a joint petition for the dissolution of their marriage. Furthermore, all the financial obligations ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1042 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 7 2025:KER:18227 ``` ``` between the petitioners and the defacto complainant have been settled and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. This Court also perused the Annexure-A2 agreement executed between the 1[st] petitioner and the defact complainant, which further addresses the factum of settlment. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant/1st 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 inB.S.Joshi (supra) andGian 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 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` CRL.MC NO. 1042 OF 2025 ``` ``` 8 2025:KER:18227 ``` ``` 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 the offence under Section 406 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-A1 Final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.162/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara, are hereby quashed. ``` ## **`Sd/-`** ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ## **`JUDGE`** ``` ska ``` ``` 9 2025:KER:18227 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1042 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `APPENDIX` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure-A1A COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 21/1/2023 Annexure-A2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AGREEMENT DATED 3/4/2023 Annexure-A3TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 21ST RESPONDENT DATED 4/11/2024 ```