Samban v. State of Kerala and Rekha

Crl.M.C.No.10943 of 2024 1 ``` 2025:KER:21940 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 10943 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.193/2021 OF POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.673 OF 2024 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, CHERTHALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` SAMBAN AGED 49 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN, 'DEVI KRIPA' PANAVALLI P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688526 ``` ``` BY ADV MANU ROY ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 2REKHA W/O. SAMBAN, 'DEVI KRIPA' PANAVALLI P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688526 ``` ``` BY ADVS. DEVADAS H. MALLAN C.N. PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` Crl.M.C.No.10943 of 2024 2 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21940 ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.10943 of 2024 3 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21940` ## **O R D E R** ## _**B.S.Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and another**_ [(2003) 4 SCC 675] held that the offence under Section 498-A can be quashed by the High Court exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of B.N.S.S, 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 that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations._ Crl.M.C.No.10943 of 2024 4 ``` 2025:KER:21940 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** _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 bonafides.”_ **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 Punjab and another**_ [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. _**B.S.Joshi**_ (supra), along with other Crl.M.C.No.10943 of 2024 5 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21940 ``` 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 Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. **3.** In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.193/2021 of Poochakal Police Station, Alappuzha, now pending as S.C.No.673/2024 before the Fast Track Special Court, Cherthala. As per the Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The petitioner seeks quashment of entire proceedings in the above Sessions Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. **4** . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. Crl.M.C.No.10943 of 2024 6 ``` 2025:KER:21940 ``` **==> picture [58 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 of the defacto complainant/2[nd] respondent was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant are settled and that they are living together comfortably as husband and wife along with their son. The defacto complainant would further state that, the petitioner is taking good care of her and their son and that neither the defacto complainant nor her son (the injured minor in the above case) have any intention to prosecute the case any further. 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) on behalf of herself and her minor son (injured), as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled out of the Court. The defacto complainant does not intend to prosecute the matter, any further and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No.10943 of 2024 7 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21940 ``` The defacto complainant would also swear that and that they are living together comfortably as husband and wife with their son and that the affidavit is sworn to on her free will. Moreover, learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent would submit that the relief sought for herein be allowed, in view of the settlement between the parties. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. **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 petitioner 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 Crl.M.C.No.10943 of 2024 8 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21940 ``` ends of justice. This Court also notice that offences under Sections 341 and 323 are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. **7.** In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 F.I.R, Annexure-A2 Final Report, and all further proceedings in S.C.No.673/2024 before the Fast Track Special Court, Cherthala, are hereby quashed. Sd/- **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ww Crl.M.C.No.10943 of 2024 9 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21940 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7312/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1A COPY OF F.I.R IN CRIME NO.193/2021 OF POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2A COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 09.08.2021 WITH THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND SEE 161 CR.P.C STATEMENT OF THE MATERIAL WITNESSES i.e., CW2 TO CW4. ANNEXURE A3A COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ```