C. Jayachandran, J
1. 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.â€
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.Josh i(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 1 to 3 in Crime No.1581/2023 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam, now pending as C.C.No.1587/2023
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. As per the final report, the offence alleged is under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioners seek quashment of 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 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
Perused the records.
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. The instant Crl.M.C. was filed with the knowledge and consent of the defacto complainant and she is not any more interested to prosecute
the matter. 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 (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure 3, wherein she would
unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled out of the Court. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against
the petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on her volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever.
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.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure 2 F.I.R. and F.I.S. in Crime No.1581/2023, Annexure II Final Report and all further
proceedings in C.C.No.1587/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam are hereby quashed.
