Anoop and Sereefa v. State of Kerala and Alfiya C.N.

2025:KER:22951 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ## **`CRL.MC NO. 33 OF 2025`** ``` CRIME NO.598/2020 OF Chengamanad Police Station, Ernakulam ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.221 OF 2023 ``` ``` OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ALUVA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2:`** - **`1 ANOOP AGED 32 YEARS S/O RAHEEM, PANDIYALA PARAMBU HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERY, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683585`** - **`2 SEREEFA AGED 57 YEARS W/O RAHIM, PANDIYALA PARAMBU HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERY, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683585 BY ADVS. V.H.UBAIDHULLA MUMNITHA E. MUJEEB`** ## **`RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 ALFIYA C.N D/O. NOUSHAD, CHENNOTH HOUSE, PALAPRASSERY, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683578 BY ADV T.E.ISMAIL SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP)`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2025:KER:22951 Crl.MC.No.33 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :2: **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.** ------------------------------------ **Crl.MC.No.33 of 2025** -----------------------------------Dated this the 7[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 in B.S.Joshi (supra) are relevant and extracted here ``` 2025:KER:22951 Crl.MC.No.33 of 2025 :3: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `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 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:22951 ## Crl.MC.No.33 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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 persons in Crime No.598/2020 of Chengamanad Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.221/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:22951 Crl.MC.No.33 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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 2[nd]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 and that the defacto complainant and the 1[st] petitioner are legally separated, wherefore, 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 ``` 2025:KER:22951 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No.33 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` sworn to by the defacto complainant (2[nd]respondent herein) as Annexure-2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that the defacto complainant and the 1[st] petitioner have decided to dissolve their marriage by way of divorce. The defacto complainant would also swear that she does not intend to proceed with the prosecution case against the petitioners, any further and that 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 2[nd]respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. ``` ``` 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 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:22951 Crl.MC.No.33 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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-1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.221/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva, are hereby quashed. ``` ``` sd/- ``` ## **C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.** Raj. 2025:KER:22951 Crl.MC.No.33 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :8: ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 33/2025`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure 1CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC 221 OF 2023 BEFORE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II AT ALUVA IN CRIME 598 OF 2020 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION ``` ``` Annexure 2AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT NO. 2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ```