Gazal Jalal and Others v. State of Kerala and Dr. Ridhuvana Abdul Kareem

``` 2025:KER:21792 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`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. 625 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.908/2020 OF North Paravur Police Station, ``` ## **`Ernakulam`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1132 OF ``` ``` 2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- III, NORTH PARAVUR ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:`** - **`1 GAZAL JALAL AGED 35 YEARS S/O JALAL MUHAMMED, KARUPPAM VEEDU(BENZI HOUSE), THRIKKAVU KARA, PONNANI NAGARAM VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, PONNANI P.O., MALAPURAM, PIN - 679577`** - **`2 RAHANA JALAL AGED 58 YEARS W/O JALAL MUHAMMED , KARUPPAM VEEDU(BENZI HOUSE), THRIKKAVU KARA, PONNANI NAGARAM VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, PONNANI P.O., MALAPURAM, PIN - 679577`** - **`3 ABDUL NASAR AGED 65 YEARS S/O KUTTI ALI, KARUPPAM VEEDU, THRIKKAVU KARA, PONNANI NAGARAM VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, PONNANI P.O., MALAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT NOWROJI MANSION CHS LTD, FLAT NO. 4, 3RD FLOOR, WODE HOUSE ROAD, NP ROAD COLABA, MUMBAI, MUMBAI GPO, MAHARASTRA, PIN - 400001`** ``` 2025:KER:21792 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025 :2: ## **`4 NOORJAHAN AGED 59 YEARS`** ``` W/O ABDUL NASAR, KARUPPAM VEEDU, THRIKKAVU KARA, PONNANI NAGARAM VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, PONNANI P.O., MALAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT NOWROJI MANSION CHS LTD, FLAT NO. 4, 3RD FLOOR, WODE HOUSE ROAD, NP ROAD COLABA, MUMBAI, MUMBAI GPO, MAHARASTRA, PIN - 400001 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.K.FAISAL AKHIL FAISAL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 DR. RIDHUVANA ABDULKAREEM D/O ABDULKAREEM, RIDHUVANA MAHAL, ST. GERMAINS CHURCH ROAD, PARAVOOTHARA KARA, PARVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683513`** ## **`BY ADV K.G.PREETHY`** ## **`SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP)`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:21792 ``` Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025 :3: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.** ------------------------------------ **Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025** ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11[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:21792 ``` :4: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025 ## `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:21792 ``` Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025 :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 persons in Crime No.908/2020 of North Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.1132/2021 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21792 ``` Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- III, North Paravur. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 2(c) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. 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 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 recorded over the phone, was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21792 ``` Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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 complainant (2[nd] respondent herein) as Annexure-3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that the 1[st] petitioner and the defacto complainant have dissolved their marriage through a Mubarat Agreement. Furthermore, the disputes between the 1[st] petitioner and the defacto complainant regarding the custody of child and gold, were also settled, and a compromise petition on that behalf has been filed before the Family Court. The defacto complainant would also swear that she is not interested to proceed with the prosecution case and that she has no objection in quashing the case against the petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21792 ``` Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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 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. ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21792 ``` Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No. 908/2020, Annexure-2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1132/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur, are hereby quashed. ``` Sd/- ## **C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.** Raj. ``` 2025:KER:21792 ``` Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :10: ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 625/2025`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure.1THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.908/2020 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION DATED.27.8.2020 ``` ``` Annexure.2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.908/2020 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION ``` ``` Annexure.3THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT /DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 05-01-2025 ```