Arshad C.P. and others v. State of Kerala and others

Crl.M.C.No.10112 of 2024 1 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21933 ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 10112 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.298/2024 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1139 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM ``` ``` PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3: ``` ``` 1ARSHAD C.P. AGED 30 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER C.P., THADAYIL HOUSE, AKKODE P.O., VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673640 ``` - **`2 JAMEELA AGED 48 YEARS`** ``` W/O. ABOOBACKER, THADAYIL HOUSE, AKKODE P.O., VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673640 ``` ``` 3ABOOBACKER C.P. AGED 55 YEARS S/O. MOOSA C.P., THADAYIL HOUSE, AKKODE P.O., VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673640 ``` ``` BY ADV.K.RAKESH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031`** Crl.M.C.No.10112 of 2024 2 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21933 ``` ``` 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673640 ``` - **`3 RAHILA, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL RASHEED, KURUMBANATHADATHIL HOUSE, KANNIPARAMBA, MAVOOR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673661`** ``` BY ADVS. KIRAN THOMAS ``` ``` SANAL P. RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.10112 of 2024 3 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21933` ## **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 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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.10112 of 2024 4 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21933` _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 bonafides.”_ **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.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 Crl.M.C.No.10112 of 2024 5 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21933` reference to the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. **3.** In the facts at hand, petitioners are accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.298/2024 of Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram, now pending as C.C.No.1139/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. As per the Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections 498-A, 406, 354-A(1)(i) 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 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 of the defacto complainant/3[rd] respondent was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is Crl.M.C.No.10112 of 2024 6 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21933 ``` clear that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled and that the defacto complainant has no intention to prosecute the case any more. 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-B, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled out of the Court and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievances against the petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on her volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. 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. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. **6.** In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out Crl.M.C.No.10112 of 2024 7 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21933 ``` 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 offence under Section 406 is compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. **7.** In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1139/2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, are hereby quashed. Sd/- ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ww Crl.M.C.No.10112 of 2024 8 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21933 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10112/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ## **`ANNEXURE A`** ``` A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.298/2024 OF THE VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION DATED 1-6-2024 ALONG WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE. ``` ``` ANNEXURE BAFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26-11-2024 ```