2025:KER:24662 Crl.M.C No.10603/2024 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 10603 OF 2024 CRIME NO.1558/2023 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.132 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KANNUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED: THAFSEER V.V,AGED 37 YEARS S/O ABDULLA, VALIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, VALIYANOOR, VARAM P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670594 BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RITHIK S.ANAND RISHI VARMA T.R. RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670663 3 ZEHBA THAFSEER, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O MUHAMMED ZAHIR M, SEHAF, KAKKAD P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670005 BY ADV T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:24662 Crl.M.C No.10603/2024 -2- C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ======================= Crl.M.C No.10603 of 2024 ======================== Dated this the 20th 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 that the FIR was registered at her instance due to 2025:KER:24662 Crl.M.C No.10603/2024 -3- 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 [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. B.S.Joshi (supra), along with other cases, were confirmed by the Supreme Court. It is relevant 2025:KER:24662 Crl.M.C No.10603/2024 -4- 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, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1558/2023 of Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur, now pending as C.C.No.132/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. 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 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 petitioner and the defacto complainant are settled and 2025:KER:24662 Crl.M.C No.10603/2024 -5- that they are legally separated. 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 petitioner. 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 she does not want to further proceed with the above case. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no further complaints 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, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 3rd 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 2025:KER:24662 Crl.M.C No.10603/2024 -6- 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. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.1558/2023, Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.132/2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE vdv 2025:KER:24662 Crl.M.C No.10603/2024 -7- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10603/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 1558/2023 FILED BEFORE THE KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 02.02.2024 IN C.C. NO. 132/2024 OF HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANNUR Annexure A3 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.11.2024