Anees K.P. and others v. State of Kerala and others

``` 2025:KER:21815 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7899 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.879/2021 OF Panur Police Station, Kannur ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.710 OF 2022 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THALASSERY ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** - **`1 ANEES.K.P. AGED 35 YEARS S/O.YOUSUF HAJI, MADATHIL THAZHE KUNIYIL (H), PANOOR.P.O., KANNUR., PIN – 670692`** - **`2 YOUSUF HAJI AGED 75 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, MADATHIL THAZHE KUNIYIL (H), PANOOR.P.O., KANNUR., PIN – 670692`** - **`3 SAINABA.O.K. AGED 70 YEARS W/O. YOUSUF HAJI, MADATHIL THAZHE KUNIYIL (H), PANOOR.P.O., KANNUR., PIN – 670692`** - **`4 HARIF.K.K. AGED 50 YEARS S/O.YOUSUF HAJI, MADATHIL THAZHE KUNIYIL (H), PANOOR.P.O., KANNUR., PIN - 670692`** ``` BY ADVS. D.ARUN BOSE K.VISWAN ``` ``` 2025:KER:21815 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023 :2: ## **`RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670692`** - **`3 SUHANA.C.K. AGED 27 YEARS D/O.MAHAMOOD.C.K., CHERIYAKUYYERI, CHERUVANCHERRY.P.O., KANNUR, KERALA., PIN - 670650`** ## **`SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP)`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:21815 ``` Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023 :3: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.** ------------------------------------ **Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023** ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10[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 onState of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699], a two Judges Bench inB.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 ``` ``` 2025:KER:21815 ``` :4: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023 ## `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 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21815 ``` Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023 :5: ``` 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 inB.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 the accused nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.879/2021 of Panoor Police Station, Kannur, now pending as C.C.No.710/2022 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21815 ``` Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The offences alleged are under Sections 406,498A 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. ``` ``` 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 3[rd]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 in Court mediation and that the defacto complainant is currently remarried and nine months pregnant. The ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21815 ``` Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` defacto complainant is no longer interested to continue with 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 (3[rd]respondent herein) as Annexure-4, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that marriage between the defacto complainant and the 1[st] petitioner has been dissolved by way of the pronouncement of Talaq. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioners and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21815 ``` Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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. This Court also notice that the offence under Section 406 is compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21815 ``` Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-3 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.710/2022 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery, are hereby quashed. ``` ``` sd/- ``` ## **C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.** Raj. ``` 2025:KER:21815 ``` Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :10: ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7899/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** |**`Annexure`**|**`1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P.NO.1294 OF 2021`**| |---|---|---| |||**`DATED 09.11.2021 FILED BEFORE THE`**| |||**`HONOURABLE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL`**| |||**`MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY.`**| |**`Annexure`**|**`2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME`**| |---|---|---| |||**`NO.879/2021 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION`**| |||**`DATED 11.11.2021.`**| |**`Annexure`**|**`3`**|**`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN`**| |||**`CRIME NO.879/2021 OF PANOOR POLICE`**| |||**`STATION DATED 24.03.2022.`**| |**`Annexure`**|**`4`**|**`AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD`**| |||**`RESPONDENT DATED 23.01.2023.`**|