IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 10824 OF 2024 CRIME NO.1402/2023 OF Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.188 OF

2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -

II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

1 AMALJITH S.S AGED 25 YEARS S/O SASIDHARAN, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, ANAMON, PONGUMMOODU, KOVALASSERY P.O, MARANALLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695512

2 ABHIJITH S.S AGED 28 YEARS S/O SASIDHARAN, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, ANAMON, PONGUMMOODU, KOVALASSERY P.O, MARANALLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695512

3 GOPIKA P.B AGED 25 YEARS D/O PRABHA, GOKULAM, POOVANVILA KALATHUVILA, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695126

4 SASIDHARAN V AGED 63 YEARS S/O VISHWANATHAN G, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, ANAMON, PONGUMMOODU, KOVALASSERY P.O, MARANALLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695512

5 SREELATHA L AGED 51 YEARS W/O SASIDHARAN, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, ANAMON, PONGUMMOODU, KOVALASSERY P.O, MARANALLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695512 BY ADVS.

SAIJO HASSAN V.P.REJITHA BAPPU GALIB SALAM SANGEETH MOHAN ALFIYA A.

ABHIJITH NAIR RESPONDENT/ S TATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINAN T :

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695023

3 MEGHA G.A AGED 25 YEARS D/O GIRIJAMBIKA, NOW RESIDING AT IARA.85, JANA VEEDU, IRANIMUTTAM RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, ATTUKAL WARD, MANAKKADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695008 BY ADV B.SABITHA (DESOM)

SRI. E.C. BINEESH (PP)

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

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

Crl.M.C.No.10824 of 2024 ------------------------------------

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2025

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 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 o