Allowed¶64

Mr. Muhammed Shajil Ayyoth v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2025Crl.MC/1616/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashment of FIR and final report on settlement; inherent powers Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS 2023; offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC; matrimonial dispute settled amicably in mediation; defacto complainant affidavit (Annexure-III) and court-recorded statement; non-compoundable offence quashed per B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 referred; abuse of process; ends of justice; compoundability of Section 406; Kannur City Police Crime No.681/2023; C.C.No.1687/2023 JFCM-II Kannur; neutral citation 2025:KER:22990.

What did the court decide?

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, quashed. ¶64

Mr. Muhammed Shajil Ayyoth Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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, quashed.

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1687/2023 (arising from Crime No.681/2023) for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC can be quashed in exercise of the High Court's inherent powers, on the strength of the settlement arrived at between the parties. +1 more

¶49

Court's answer

The necessary parameters culled out in B.S. Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh (Supra) are fully satisfied; further proceedings against the petitioners will be a futile exercise since the disputes stand settled, there is little possibility of conviction, and compelling the parties to face criminal proceedings despite the settlement would amount to abuse of the process of Court; the quashment sought would secure the ends of justice.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

The settlement arrived at between the parties is genuine and bonafide: the defacto complainant, who is residing harmoniously with the 1st petitioner as husband and wife, has no objection to quashing, and her Annexure-III affidavit unequivocally states the disputes are amicably settled and was sworn on her own volition without any compulsion.

¶55

Key takeaways

The offence under Section 406 IPC is compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Crl.MC No.1616 of 2025 (High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam; C. Jayachandran J.; 07.03.2025): Quashment of prosecution of accused Nos.1 to 4 for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC (Crime No.681/2023, Kannur City Police Station; C.C.No.1687/2023, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur) in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), on the basis of amicable settlement. Applying the parameters in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, as confirmed in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and noting the defacto complainant's statement recorded on the Court's direction and her voluntary Annexure-III affidavit that the disputes were settled in mediation and that she resides harmoniously with the 1st petitioner, the Court held the parameters fully satisfied, the settlement genuine and bonafide, conviction unlikely, and continuance of proceedings an abuse of process; the compoundable nature of the Section 406 offence reinforced acceptance of the compromise. Crl.M.C. allowed; FIR, Final Report and all further proceedings quashed.

¶1

2025:KER:22990

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 1616 OF 2025

¶7

CRIME NO.681/2021 OF Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1687 OF

¶8

2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KANNUR

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1,2,3 AND 4:

¶10

1MR. 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

¶11

2MR. 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

¶12

3MR. KHAYRUNNISA AYYOTH
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O KHALEEL,'KHAIRU NIVAS', K.T.WARD, KANNUR

¶13

2025:KER:22990

¶14

Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025

¶15

:2:

¶16

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

¶17

4MUHAMMED 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

¶18

BY ADVS.
P.P.MUBASHIR ALI
NASIYA A.V.

¶19

RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:

¶20

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶21

2SHIFA 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

¶22

BY ADV MISHAL ASHRAF

¶23

SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶25

07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025

¶27

2025:KER:22990

¶28

:3:

¶29

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶30

Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025

¶31

Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2025

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

B.S.Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and

¶34

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

¶35

2025:KER:22990

¶36

Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025

¶37

:4:

¶38

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:

¶39

“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

¶40

2025:KER:22990

¶41

Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025

¶42

:5:

¶43

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.”

¶44

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 matter in B.S.Joshi (supra)
was specifically with reference to the offences
under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶45

3. In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused

¶46

2025:KER:22990

¶47

Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025

¶48

:6:

¶49

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.

¶50

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for the 2ndrespondent/defacto
complainant and the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor. Perused the records.

¶51

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

¶52

2025:KER:22990

¶53

Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025

¶54

:7:

¶55

defacto complainant are settled amicably in
mediation and that the defacto complainant and the
1st 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 (2nd 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 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse

¶56

2025:KER:22990

¶57

Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025

¶58

:8:

¶59

that the quashment sought for can be allowed.

¶60

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.

¶61

2025:KER:22990

¶62

Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025

¶63

:9:

¶64

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.

¶65

sd/-

¶66

C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶67

Raj.

¶68

2025:KER:22990

¶69

Crl.MC.No.1616 of 2025

¶70

:10:

¶71

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1616/2025

¶72

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶73

Annexure I

¶74

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

¶75

Annexure IICERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
INCLUDING THE WITNESS STATEMENT AND
DOCUMENTS

¶76

Annexure IIICOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT

Mr. Muhammed Shajil Ayyoth v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Muhammed Shajil Ayyoth v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hudaifa C.H, Vs State of Kerala

Sibi.v.T Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Sha O.S Vs State of Kerala

Vikraman Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Eldho Alias Vs State of Kerala