Nandakishore P.B. and Bindu v. State of Kerala and Abhima V.J.

**==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:24037** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946** **CRL.MC NO. 1869 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.1020/2023 OF Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode** **AGAINST CC NO.355 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERAMBRA** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:** - **1 NANDAKISHORE.P.B AGED 31 YEARS S/O PAVITHRAN, PADIKKAL HOUSE, ULLOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673323** - **2 BINDU AGED 50 YEARS S/O PAVITHRAN, PADIKKAL HOUSE, ULLOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673323** **BY ADVS. K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH VANDANA MENON VIMAL VIJAY** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 ABHIMA V.J AGED 28 YEARS D/0 VISWANATHAN, CHENOLI PO, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673525** ## **BY ADV VINAYAK MANOHARAN P.** ## **ADV SANAL P. RAJ – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No. 1869 of 2025 ..2.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:24037** **O R D E R** _Dated this the 17[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. 1869 of 2025 ..3.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:24037** _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. 1869 of 2025 **2025:KER:24037** **==> picture [59 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> 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 and 2 in Crime No.1020/2023 of Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode, now pending as C.C.No.355/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perambra. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A and 406, read with Section 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. 1869 of 2025 ..5.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:24037** **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 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-C, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that she has decided not to proceed further with the above case. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the case against the petitioners and that 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 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. Crl.M.C.No. 1869 of 2025 ..6.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:24037** **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 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-A F.I.R, Annexure-B final report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.355/2024 pending before the Judicial Crl.M.C.No. 1869 of 2025 ..7.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:24037** First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perambra, are hereby quashed. Sd/- **C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE** TR Crl.M.C.No. 1869 of 2025 **2025:KER:24037** ..8.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1869/2025** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** ## **Annexure A** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. ALONG WITH FIS IN CRIME NO. 1020/2023 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION DATED 10.12.2023** **Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO 355/2024 DATED 02.01.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRSTCLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, PERAMBRA** **Annexure C ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.12.2024 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**