JiJo Thomas @ Shafi and Vincent v. State of Kerala and Mariya V.A.

``` 2025:KER:26155 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1810 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1177/2015 OF VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ``` IN CC NO.2729 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ``` ## **`KUNNAMKULAM`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 and 3:`** ``` 1JIJO THOMAS @ SHAFI AGED 37 YEARS S/O THOMAS, PUSHPA VILASAM, KADUVILA, CHILAMPARA DESOM, KEEZHAVOOR VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011 ``` ``` 2VINCENT AGED 55 YEARS S/O MANAS NADAR, PUSHPA VILASAM, KADUVILA, CHILAMPARA DESOM, KEEZHAVOOR VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011 ``` ``` BY ADVS. JERRY MATHEW DEVIKA K.R. SIYAD UMMER ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 2MARIYA V.A AGED 35 YEARS N 34/16, VALIYAPURAKKAL HOUSE, PUNAYOOR AMSAM, AKALAD, BADARPALLI WEST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680518 ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1810 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:26155 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 2 - ``` BY ADVS. SRI. E.C. BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1810 of 20252025:KER:26155 ``` - 3 - **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.1810 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 24[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 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 ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1810 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:26155 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 4 - ``` 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 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 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 ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1810 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:26155 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 5 - ``` [(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 and 3 in Crime No.1177/2015 of Vadakkekad Police Station, Thrissur, now pending as C.C.No.2729/2016 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam. As per the final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 420 and 506(i) 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 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. ``` ``` 5.In this case, it is noticed that an affidavit of the defacto complainant endorsing the factum of settlement is not appended with the Crl.M.C. However, the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the defacto ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1810 of 20252025:KER:26155 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 6 - ``` complainant (2[nd] respondent herein), wherein she would unequivocally state that she is not interested to proceed with the case any further. The instant Crl.M.C was filed with the knowledge of the defacto complainant, wherefore she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Moreover, this Court also perused Annexure-4 Award passed in the Lok Adalat held at Thrissur on 05.08.2022, which also speaks about the amicable settlement between the parties. It is also taken stock of that, the notice issued to the 2[nd] respondent has been served, but she chose not to appear before this Court. In the circumstances, the absence of the affidavit of the 2 respondent need not stand in the way of the relief sought for. 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 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 ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1810 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:26155 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [24 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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 offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. ``` ``` In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-2 ``` ``` Final Report in Crime No.1177/2015 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.2729/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, are hereby quashed. Though this Crl.M.C. is preferred by the accused nos.1 and 3, this Court choose to quash the final report and all further proceedings in the above Calendar Case against all the accused persons, inasmuch as the settlement will operate in favour of other accused persons as well. ``` ## **`Sd/-`** ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ## **`JUDGE`** ``` SKP ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.1810 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:26155 ``` - 8 - **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1810/2025`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES:`** ## **`ANNEXURE 1`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1177 / 2015 DATED 24.12.2015 OF VADAKEKAD POLICE STATION ``` ``` ANNEXURE 2THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 25.06.2016 IN CC NO. 2729/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMKULAM ``` ``` ANNEXURE 3THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR IN OP 200 OF 2016 AND MC 50 OF 2016 DATED 14.11.2017 ``` ``` ANNEXURE 4THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADALAT SETTLEMENT ORDER COPY DATED 05.08.2022 ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL`** ## **`TRUE COPY`** ``` P.A. TO JUDGE ```