Petitioners accused in a 498A IPC case sought quashing of proceedings on the basis of an amicable settlement with the defacto complainant, who filed an affidavit confirming no objection. The High Court, applying B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh, allowed quashing.
FIR, final report in Crime No.423/2023 and all proceedings in CC No.883/2023 quashed
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.
1 2025:KER:19176
CRL.MC NO. 1412 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1412 OF 2025
CRIME NO.423/2023 OF Valappatanam Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.883 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KANNUR
PETITIONERS:
1 MUHAMMED SINAN T PAGED 30 YEARS
S/O. SHAMEENA T P, SHAMEENA’S HOUSE, NEAR BOAT JETTY,
VALAPATANAM, VALAPATANAM BRIDGE, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN
- 670010
2T P SHAMEENA
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. KC SALEEM, SHAMEENA’S HOUSE, NEAR BOAT JETTY,
VALAPATANAM, VALAPATANAM BRIDGE, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN
- 670010
BY ADV JASNEED JAMAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 6820312 SHAHANA K V AGED 25 YEARSCRL.MC NO. 1412 OF 2025
2 2025:KER:19176
D/O. ABDUL JABBAR P K, P P A HOUSE, PULLOOPI,
PARAPPURAM, KANNADIPARAMBA POST, CHELERI, KANNUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 670604
BY ADV M.ANUROOP
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. SANAL P RAJ (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1412 OF 2025
3 2025:KER:19176
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Crl.M.C.No.1412 of 2023
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd 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
CRL.MC NO. 1412 OF 2025
4 2025:KER:19176
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
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
CRL.MC NO. 1412 OF 20255 2025:KER:19176
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 persons in Crime No.423/2023 of Baliapattam
Police Station, Kannur, now pending as C.C.No.883/2023
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Kannur. As per the final report, the offence alleged is
under Section 498A 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.
CRL.MC NO. 1412 OF 20256 2025:KER:19176
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for the defacto complainant/2nd
respondent 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 complied and the statement was handed
over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the
defacto complainant is not anymore interested to proceed
with the prosecution case, as 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 (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A3,
wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes
have been amicably settled. The defacto complainant
would also swear that she has no grievance against the
petitioners and that she has no objection in quashing
the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The
affidavit is sworn to on her free will. This Court, is
CRL.MC NO. 1412 OF 20257 2025:KER:19176
therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is
genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the defacto
complainant/ 2nd respondent 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 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.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
CRL.MC NO. 1412 OF 20258 2025:KER:19176
Annexure-A1 FIR, Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime
No.423/2023 andallfurtherproceedingsin
C.C.No.883/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II, Kannur, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
ska
CRL.MC NO. 1412 OF 2025
9 2025:KER:19176
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1412/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.
423/2023 OF THE VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION
Annexure A2CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
423 OF 2023 OF THE VALAPATTANAM POLICE
STATION
Annexure A3THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT.
2 issues framed by the court
Can criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC be quashed under inherent powers where the parties have amicably settled?
Is the settlement between the parties genuine and bonafide warranting quashment?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S.Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and anotherApplied
[(2003) 4 SCC 675] · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka v. L. MuniswamyRelied on
[(1977) 2 SCC 699] · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on
[(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Muhammed Sinan T P
T P Shameena
State of Kerala
Shahana K V
C. JAYACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court