Full Judgment
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 1880 OF 2025 CRIME NO.673/2023 OF VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1199 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEDUMANGAD PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SAAJID AGED 38 YEARS S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, AYAKKADU, VADAKKUMKARA VEEDU, THEMBAMOODU, PULLAMPARA P.O, PULLAMPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695607 BY ADVS. K.J.MANU RAJ ADONIYA GIGI RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695547 - 2 - 3 SHAIBA HAYUM, AGED 36 YEARS D/O. SHAILA HAYUM, RESIDING AT BAITHUL AMAN, TOLL JUNCTION, ANAD P.O., ANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695547 BY ADVS. K. VINAYA SANAL P. RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 -
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 498-A can be quashed by the High Court exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of B.N.S.S, 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 that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not - 4 -
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 bonafides.”
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 - 5 -
Supreme Court. It is relevant to note that the subject matter in B.S.Joshi (supra) was specifically with reference to the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.673/2023 of Valiyamala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now
pending as C.C.No.1199/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangadu. As per the Final Report, the offence alleged is under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks 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 petitioner; learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant 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 - 6 - complied and the statement of the defacto complainant was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the defacto
complainant is no longer interested to proceed with the prosecution case against the petitioner and that she has no objection in quashing the above case. That apart, it is noticed that along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled out of the Court and that they have decided to dissolve their marriage. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioner and that she has no
objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. Moreover, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the relief sought for herein be allowed, in view of the settlement between the parties. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. - 7 -
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 petitioner 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.
7. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1
F.I.R, Annexure-A2 Final report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1199/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww - 8 - APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1880/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 2.7.2023 ON THE FILES OF VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION IN FIR NO 673 OF ANNEXURE A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE POLICE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1 NEDUMANGAD DATED 25.9.2023 ANNEXURE A3 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT /SHAIBA HAYUM DATED 17.2.2025