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:

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 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 [(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 betwe