Husband and mother-in-law accused in a dowry-cruelty case sought quashing of proceedings after settlement with the defacto complainant. Court verified her affidavit and statement confirming reconciliation, found parameters of B.S.Joshi and Gian Singh satisfied, and quashed FIR, Final Report and further proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.M.C.No.109 of 2025
-: 1 :-
2025:KER:21949
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 109 OF 2025
CRIME NO.634/2022 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.860 OF 2022 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
1AJMAL SHA O.S
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O LATE O.M.SHAHUL, OTTITHOTTATHIL (H),
EDAVETTY, NEAR MARTHOMA CHAPEL,
EDAVETTY VILLAGE,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI, PIN - 68558
2THANUJA SHAHUL,
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O LATE O.M SHAHUL, OTTITHOTTATILL (HOUSE),
EDAVETTY VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685588
BY ADVS.
V.A.HAKEEM
HABNAM HAKEEM
Crl.M.C.No.109 of 2025
-: 2 :-
2025:KER:21949
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 6820312 INSPECTOR OF POLICE INFOPARK POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 6820303FATHIMA NAFEESA
AGED 26 YEARS
D/O V.A YAHIYA, VALIYAVEETIL(HOUSE), MANJUMMAL,
ELOOR, PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683501
BY ADVS. NOUSHAD K.H
C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.109 of 2025
-: 3 :-
2025:KER:21949
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
Crl.M.C.No.109 of 2025
-: 4 :-
2025:KER:21949
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 to note that the subject
Crl.M.C.No.109 of 2025
2025:KER:21949
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, petitioners are accused nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.634/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.860/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad. As per the Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections 498-A 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 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 sent via e-mail, was handed
Crl.M.C.No.109 of 2025
-: 6 :-
2025:KER:21949
over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled amicably; that the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant are living together comfortably as husband and wife; 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 (3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-3 wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that she has no grievance against the petitioners. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and 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. Moreover, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that the relief sought for herein be allowed, in view of the settlement between the parties.
Crl.M.C.No.109 of 2025
-: 7 :-
2025:KER:21949
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.
7. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-1 F.I.R, Annexure-2 Final Report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.860/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww
Crl.M.C.No.109 of 2025
-: 8 :-
2025:KER:21949
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 109/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.634 OF 2022 OF
INFOPARK POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY
DATED 1.10.2022
ANNEXURE 2TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN FIR
NO.634 OF 2022 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM CITY DATED 12.11.2022
ANNEXURE 3THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 9.12.2024 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC can be quashed under inherent powers given genuine settlement between parties?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S.Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and anotherRelied on¶1
(2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka v. L. MuniswamyReferred¶1
(1977) 2 SCC 699 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶2
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 4 enactments
Ajmal Sha O.S
Thanuja Shahul
State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
Inspector of Police, Infopark Police Station
Fathima Nafeesa
C. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court