Allowed¶55

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2025Crl.MC/9693/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court, Ernakulam (Justice C. Jayachandran, 07-03-2025) in Crl.M.C. No. 9693 of 2023: quashment of matrimonial-discord prosecution under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC on settlement. Keywords: quashing; inherent powers; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS 2023; non-compoundable offence; Section 320 Cr.P.C.; Section 498-A IPC; B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699; amicable settlement; defacto complainant affidavit; abuse of process; ends of justice; Crime No.31/2023 Pothanikadu Police Station; C.C. No.164/2023 JFCM-II Kothamangalam; Annexure-1 Final Report dated 28-02-2023; Annexure-2 affidavit dated 06-11-2023.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Annexure-1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.164/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kothamangalam.

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of Annexure-1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.164/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kothamangalam.

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.164/2023 (arising from Crime No.31/2023, offences under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC) should be quashed in exercise of the High Court's inherent power, on the strength of the settlement between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

The necessary parameters culled out in B.S.Joshi and Gian Singh are fully satisfied; further proceedings against the petitioners would be a futile exercise, the disputes having already been settled.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The settlement is genuine and bona fide: the issues stand amicably settled, the defacto complainant is residing peacefully with her husband at the matrimonial house, has no objection to quashing, and swore the affidavit on her own volition.

¶50

Key takeaways

There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime.ratio¶54
If compelled to face the criminal proceedings dehors the settlement, it would, in the Court's estimation, amount to abuse of the process of Court; the quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice.ratio¶54
The Crl.M.C. is allowed; Annexure-1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.164/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kothamangalam, are quashed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.) — quashing of prosecution for offences under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties — inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of B.N.S.S, 2023) invoked, the offence being non-compoundable under Section 320 — following B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, as confirmed in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 — defacto complainant's statement recorded on court direction and her Annexure-2 affidavit (dated 06-11-2023) showed a genuine and bona fide settlement, she residing peacefully with her husband (1st petitioner) at the matrimonial house and having no objection to quashing — further proceedings held futile with little possibility of conviction, and continuance dehors the settlement would amount to abuse of process of Court — Annexure-1 Final Report dated 28-02-2023 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.164/2023, JFCM-II, Kothamangalam (Crime No.31/2023, Pothanikadu Police Station), quashed.

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.9693 of 2023

¶2

-: 1 :-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 9693 OF 2023

¶8

CRIME NO.31/2023 OF POTHANIKADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.164 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, KOTHAMANGALAM

¶10

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶11

1 ANEESH

¶12

AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.NANDANAN, PALLIKUNNATHU HOUSE,
ENANELLOOR P.O., KALAMPOOR, ENANELLOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN - 686673

¶13

2 NANDANAN

¶14

AGED 60 YEARS
S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, PALLIKUNNATHU HOUSE,
ENANELLOOR P.O., KALAMPOOR, ENANELLOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673

¶15

3 SANTHAKUMARINANDANAN,

¶16

AGED 60 YEARS

¶17

W/O NANDANAN, PALLIKUNNATHU HOUSE,
ENANELLOOR P.O., KALAMPOOR, ENANELLOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673

¶18

BY ADV BALRAM S.A.

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.9693 of 2023

¶20

-: 2 :-

¶21

 2025:KER:21944

¶22

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶23

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶24

2 ATHIRAMOL K R @ATHIRA K.R W/O ANEESH, KANNAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KALLOORKADU P.O., KALLOORKKADU VILLAGE, MUVATTPUZHA TALUK, KERALA STATE-686668, NOW RESIDING AT PALLIKUNNATHU HOUSE, ENANELLOOR P.O., KALAMPOOR, ENANELLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN - 686673

¶25

BY ADVS. C.N. PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
 ASWIN V. NAIR

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.9693 of 2023

¶28

-: 3 :-

¶29

 2025:KER:21944

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

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

¶32

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:

¶33

“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

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.9693 of 2023

¶35

-: 4 :-

¶36

 2025:KER:21944

¶37

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.”

¶38

2. The dictum laid down in B.S.Joshi (supra) was doubted

¶39

along with that laid down in other cases and referred to and considered by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.9693 of 2023

¶42

-: 5 :-

¶43

reference to the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the

¶44

Indian Penal Code.

¶45

3. In the facts at hand, petitioners are accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.31/2023 of Pothanikadu Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.164/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kothamangalam. As per the Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections 498-A and 34 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.

¶46

4 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

¶47

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

¶48

Crl.M.C.No.9693 of 2023

¶49

-: 6 :-

¶50

the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are amicably settled and that 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 (2^nd respondent herein) as Annexure-2 wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled amicably out of the Court and that the complaint stemmed from some misunderstanding. Furthermore, the defacto complainant is residing peacefully with her husband (1^st petitioner herein) at the matrimonial house, wherefore, she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no further grievance against the petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. 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.

¶51

Crl.M.C.No.9693 of 2023

¶52

-: 7 :-

¶53

 2025:KER:21944

¶54

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.

¶55

7. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.164/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kothamangalam, are hereby quashed.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶58

¶59

Crl.M.C.No.9693 of 2023

¶60

-: 8 :-

¶61

 2025:KER:21944

¶62

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9693/2023

¶63

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶64

ANNEXURE 1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE
SHEET DATED 28-02-2023 IN C.C.NO.164 OF
2023, ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASSMAGISTRATECOURT–II,
KOTHAMANGALAM ARISING FROM CRIME NO.31 OF
2023 ON THE FILES OF POTHANICADU, POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
ANNEXURE 2AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2NDRESPONDENT
DATED 06-11-2023

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hudaifa C.H, Vs State of Kerala

Sibi.v.T Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Sha O.S Vs State of Kerala

Vikraman Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Eldho Alias Vs State of Kerala

Mr. Muhammed Shajil Ayyoth Vs State of Kerala