null

2025:KER:22990 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 1616 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.681/2021 OF Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1687 OF ``` ``` 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KANNUR ``` ``` PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1,2,3 AND 4: ``` - **`1 MR. MUHAMMED SHAJIL AYYOTH AGED 36 YEARS`** ``` S/O KHALEEL KADAVANTAVIDA KUMTUVEETIL, , EMPLOYED ABROAD,'KHAIRU NIVAS', K.T.WARD, KANNUR CITY P.O, PIN: 670003, KANNURKARAR AMSOM KANNUR-1 DESOM KANNUR THALUK AND KANNUR DISTRICT, STATE OF KERALA NOW RESIDING AT FLAT 401,BUILDING 2590,MUWEILAH, SHARJAH , P.O BO.UAEX NO.79136, PIN - 670003 ``` - **`2 MR. KHALEEL KADAVANTAVIDA AGED 63 YEARS`** ``` S/O ABOOBACKER ,'KHAIRU NIVAS', K.T.WARD, KANNUR CITY P.O, PIN: 670003, KANNURKARAR AMSOM KANNUR-1 DESOM KANNUR THALUK AND KANNUR DISTRICT, STATE OF KERALA,NOW RESIDING AT FLAT 401,BUILDING 2590,MUWEILAH, SHARJAH, P.O.BOX NO 79136,UAE, PIN - 670001 ``` - **`3 MR. KHAYRUNNISA AYYOTH AGED 54 YEARS`** ## **`W/O KHALEEL,'KHAIRU NIVAS', K.T.WARD, KANNUR`** 2025:KER:22990 Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :2: ``` CITY P.O, PIN: 670003, KANNURKARAR AMSOM KANNUR-1 DESOM KANNUR THALUK AND KANNUR DISTRICT, STATE OF KERALA,NOW RESIDING AT FLAT 401,BUILDING 2590,MUWEILAH, SHARJAH, P.O.BOX NO 79136,UAE, PIN - 670001 ``` - **`4 MUHAMMED SHAHIL AGED 28 YEARS`** ``` S/O KHALEEL,KHAIRU NIVAS', K.T.WARD, KANNUR CITY P.O, PIN: 670003, KANNURKARAR AMSOM KANNUR-1 DESOM KANNUR THALUK AND KANNUR DISTRICT, STATE OF KERALA,NOW RESIDING AT FLAT 401,BUILDING 2590,MUWEILAH, SHARJAH, P.O.BOX NO 79136,UAE, PIN - 670001 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.P.MUBASHIR ALI NASIYA A.V. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 SHIFA AMNA MANGADAN AGED 29 YEARS`** - **`D/O. ABDUL RAFEAK MADATHIL THATTANTAVIDA, RESIDING AT 'SHIFA REEM ', MANATTIVALAPPU, AZAD ROAD, P.O KANNUR CIY, KANNURKARAR AMSOM KANNUR 1 DESOM KANNUR THALUK AND KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670003`** ## **`BY ADV MISHAL ASHRAF`** ## **`SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP)`** ## **`THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON`** ``` 07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2025:KER:22990 Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :3: ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.** ------------------------------------ **Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025** ------------------------------------ Dated this the 7[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 ``` 2025:KER:22990 Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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 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 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:22990 ## Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025 :5: ``` 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 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` 2025:KER:22990 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` persons in Crime No.681/2023 of Kannur City Police Station, Kannur, now pending as C.C.No.1687/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 406 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 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 was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and the ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:22990 Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` defacto complainant are settled amicably in mediation and that the defacto complainant and the 1[st] petitioner are residing together harmoniously as husband and wife, along with their daughter. 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) as Annexure-III, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that she does not want to proceed with the prosecution case, as against the petitioners, any further. The defacto complainant would also swear that 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 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse ``` 2025:KER:22990 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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. This Court also notice that the offence under Section 406 is compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. ``` 2025:KER:22990 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No. 681/2023, Annexure-II Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1687/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur, are hereby quashed. ``` sd/- ## **C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.** Raj. 2025:KER:22990 Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :10: ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1616/2025`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ## **`Annexure I`** ``` THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 681/2023, FILED BY THE KANNUR CITY POLICE AND PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT-II, KANNUR ``` ## **`Annexure II`** ``` CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT INCLUDING THE WITNESS STATEMENT AND DOCUMENTS ``` ``` Annexure III ``` ``` COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT ```