Favas Khalid and others v. State of Kerala and Fathima Shahzadhi Mashhood (Crl.M.C.No.8147 of 2024)

``` 2025:KER:21792 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 8147 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.184/2022 OF Thalassery Police Station, Kannur ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.481 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,THALASSERY ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** - **`1 FAVAS KHALID AGED 35 YEARS`** - **`S/O. KHALID, &#8216;FALAK’, MUNDAYAD, MUNDAYAD P.O., NEAR INDOOR STADIUM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670622`** - **`2 PARAPPURATH KHALID AGED 64 YEARS`** - **`&#8216;FALAK’, MUNDAYAD, MUNDAYAD P.O., NEAR INDOOR STADIUM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670622`** - **`3 FIROZI KHALID AGED 57 YEARS W/O. KHALID, &#8216;FALAK’, MUNDAYAD, MUNDAYAD P.O., NEAR INDOOR STADIUM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670622`** - **`4 FIZA KHALID AGED 25 YEARS`** - **`D/O. KHALID, &#8216;FALAK’, MUNDAYAD, MUNDAYAD P.O., NEAR INDOOR STADIUM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670622`** ``` BY ADVS. C.K.SREEJITH CHIDAMBARANATHAN T. ``` ``` 2025:KER:22831 ``` Crl.M.C.No.8147 of 2024 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :2: ## **`SETHULEKSHMI S. ATHIRA BABURAJ`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER THALASSERY POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`3 FATHIMA SHAHZADHI MASHHOOD AGED 30 YEARS`** - **`D/O. MUHAMMEDMASHHOOD, SWEETI, PILAKOOL, TEMPLE GATE P.O., THALASSERYTALUK, KANNUR DIST, PIN - 670102`** ## **`BY ADV NAMITHA JYOTHISH`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:22831 ``` Crl.M.C.No.8147 of 2024 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :3: ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.** ------------------------------------ **Crl.M.C.No.8147 of 2024** -----------------------------------Dated this the 6[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:22831 ``` :4: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.M.C.No.8147 of 2024 ## `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 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22831 ``` Crl.M.C.No.8147 of 2024 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` "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 persons in Crime No.184/2022 of Thalassery Police Station, Kannur, now pending as C.C.No.481/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The offence alleged is under Section ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22831 ``` Crl.M.C.No.8147 of 2024 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 498-A read with Section 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 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 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22831 ``` Crl.M.C.No.8147 of 2024 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` complainant (3[rd] respondent herein) as Annexure-A5, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled out of the Court. 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. ``` ``` 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 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22831 ``` Crl.M.C.No.8147 of 2024 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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-A2 FIR in Crime No.184/2022, Annexure-A3 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.481/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery, are hereby quashed. ``` sd/- ## **C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.** Raj. ``` 2025:KER:22831 ``` Crl.M.C.No.8147 of 2024 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :9: ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8147/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A1 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.3/3/2022 ``` ``` Annexure A2THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 184/2022 ON THE FILE OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST. DT.4/3/2022 ``` ``` Annexure A3 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 184/2022 ON THE FILE OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION, KANNUR ``` ``` Annexure A4THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 184/2022 ``` ``` Annexure A5THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.10/6/2024 ```