Jackson Benny and Others v. State of Kerala

**==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:23635 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946** **CRL.MC NO. 1905 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.734/2022 OF Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam** **AGAINST CC NO.582 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** - **1 JACKSON BENNY AGED 33 YEARS** **S/O. K.T BENNY, KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, OPP.GOVT HOSPITAL, MALA , THRICHUR, PIN - 680732** **2 K.T BENNY AGED 65 YEARS S/O, K.K THOMAS KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, OPP.GOVT HOSPITAL, MALA ,THRISSUR, PIN - 680732** **3 SHOLLY BENNY AGED 62 YEARS W/O. K.T BENNY, KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, OPP.GOVT HOSPITAL, MALA, PIN - 680732** **BY ADVS. K.SHERIN MOHAN AGINOV MATHAPPAN JINU T. JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM THROUGH, S.H.O. THRIKAKARA POLICE STATION, PIN - 682030** Crl.M.C.No. 1905 of 2025 ..2.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:23635** **2 GAYA MONSON AGED 31 YEARS D/O MONSON IDIKULA, MAVANAL HOUSE, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, CSEZ, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682037** **BY ADV LEELA R. - FOR R2** **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI. 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. 1905 of 2025 ..3.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:23635** ## **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 made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit_ Crl.M.C.No. 1905 of 2025 ..4.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:23635** _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 and considered by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Crl.M.C.No. 1905 of 2025 **2025:KER:23635** ..5.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 3 in Crime No.734/2022 of Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.582/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of the 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 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. Crl.M.C.No. 1905 of 2025 ..6.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:23635** **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 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant are legally separated; wherefore, 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-B, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that she has no interest in prosecuting the case against the petitioners, any further. 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 the petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived Crl.M.C.No. 1905 of 2025 **2025:KER:23635** ..7.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 2nd 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 justice. This Court also notice that the offences under Sections 323 and 506 are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. Crl.M.C.No. 1905 of 2025 ..8.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:23635** In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A F.I.R. in Crime No.734/2022 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.582/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, are hereby quashed. **Sd/C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE** TR Crl.M.C.No. 1905 of 2025 ..9.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:23635** ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1905/2025** |**PETITIONER**|**ANNEXURES**| |---|---| |**Annexure A**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO,734/22**| ||**DATED 23.08.2022**| |**Annexure B**|**AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED**| ||**18.02.2025**|