ARSHADH AHAMMED and others v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:22352 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1039 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.17/2024 OF PALAKKAD VANITHA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD IN CC NO.172 OF 2024 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PALAKKAD ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:`** ``` 1ARSHADH AHAMMED AGED 28 YEARS S/O SHAMSUDHEEN N, POTHANUR, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 641023 2JASMINE AGED 48 YEARS W/O SHAMSUDHEEN N, POTHANUR, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 641023 3SHAMSUDHEEN N AGED 54 YEARS S/O MUSTHAFA, POTHANUR, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 641023 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.T.SHEEJISH HARIKIRAN P.SREERAM A.ABDUL RAHMAN (A-1917) AMRITA SAFAL M. YOOSUF SAFWAN T. AJMAL PARVATHI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1039 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:22352 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 2 - ``` BY ADVS. SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP) SMT.AAYISH BEEGAM FOR R2 SRI. AJOY VENU ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1039 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:22352 ``` - 3 - **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. -----------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.1039 of 2025 ------------------------------------`** _`Dated, this the 13[th] day of March, 2025`_ ## **`ORDER`** ``` 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 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 below: ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1039 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:22352 ``` - 4 - **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` “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 temperamentaldifferencesandimplied 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.” ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1039 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:22352 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 5 - ``` 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 reference to the offences under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. ``` ``` 3.In the facts at hand, petitioners are accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.17/2024 of Palakkad Vanitha Police Station, Palakkad, now pending as C.C.No.172/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad. As per the final report, the offence alleged is under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 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. ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1039 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:22352 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 6 - ``` 4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/2[nd] respondent 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 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 instant Crl.M.C. was filed with the knowledge of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant therefore 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) Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that the complaint stemmed from some misunderstanding. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no intention to continue the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners and that she has no objection in quashing the case against the ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1039 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:22352 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 7 - ``` petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court, therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant/2[nd]respondent 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 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. ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1039 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:22352 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 8 - ``` In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR, Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.17/2024 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.172/2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad, are hereby quashed. ``` ## **`Sd/-`** ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ``` JUDGE ``` ``` SKP ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1039 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:22352 ``` - 9 - **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1039/2025`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES:`** ``` ANNEXURE A1A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO: 0017/2024 OF PALAKKAD VANITHA POLICE STATION ``` ``` ANNEXURE A2A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET ALONG WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO: 0017/2024 OF PALAKKAD VANITHA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/7/2024 ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL`** ## **`TRUE COPY`** ``` P.A. TO JUDGE ```