IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 27TH POUSHA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 2 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1341/2021 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM IN CC NO.1886 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANCHERY PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:

1 SHABEER AGED 35 YEARS S/O BASHEER, CC 4/308, KARIPPALAM, MATTANCHERRY, NOW RESIDING AT CC 2/627C, KUNNUMPURAM, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682001

2 BANEESHA P.B.

AGED 38 YEARS D/O BASHEER, CC 4/308, KARIPPALAM, MATTANCHERRY, NOW RESIDING AT CC 2/627C, KUNNUMPURAM, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682001

3 AYSHA AGED 56 YEARS W/O BASHEER, CC 4/308, KARIPPALAM, MATTANCHERRY, NOW RESIDING AT CC 2/627C, KUNNUMPURAM, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682001

4 BASHEER AGED 63 YEARS S/O HAMEED, CC 4/308, KARIPPALAM, MATTANCHERRY, NOW RESIDING AT CC 2/627C, KUNNUMPURAM, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682001 BY ADVS.

ASHIK K.MOHAMED ALI MUHAMMED RIFA P.M. EHLAS HALEEMA C.K.

SALMAN FARIS GAYATHRI ASHISH NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, MATTANCHERRY KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682002, (REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM), PIN - 682031

2 SUMAYYA A.E.

AGED 34 YEARS D/O IBRAHIM, CC 4/1423, ARAKKAL VEETTIL, ADHIKARI VALAPPU, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682001 BY ADVS.

SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BINIYAMIN K.S. FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------------

Crl.M.C.No.2 of 2025 ------------------------------------

Dated, this the 17^th day of January, 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:

“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 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 [