Allowed

Saajid v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2025Crl.MC/1880/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a Section 498-A IPC case sought quashing on the strength of settlement with the defacto complainant, who filed an affidavit and statement confirming the dispute was settled and she had no objection. Relying on B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh, the High Court quashed the FIR, final report and further proceedings in C.C.No.1199/2023.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.673/2023, Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1199/2023 quashed.

Saajid Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.1880 of 2025

¶2

¶3

2025:KER:21934

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

CRL.MC NO. 1880 OF 2025

¶9

CRIME NO.673/2023 OF VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶10

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1199 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEDUMANGAD

¶11

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶12

SAAJID

¶13

AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, AYAKKADU, VADAKKUMKARA VEEDU,
THEMBAMOODU, PULLAMPARA P.O, PULLAMPARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695607

¶14

BY ADVS.
K.J.MANU RAJ
ADONIYA GIGI

¶15

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶16

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

¶17

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695547

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.1880 of 2025

¶19

¶20

2025:KER:21934

¶21

3SHAIBA HAYUM,
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O. SHAILA HAYUM, RESIDING AT BAITHUL AMAN,
TOLL JUNCTION, ANAD P.O., ANAD VILLAGE,
NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695547

¶22

BY ADVS. K. VINAYA

¶23

SANAL P. RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.1880 of 2025

¶26

¶27

2025:KER:21934

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

B.S.Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and another [(2003) 4

¶30

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

¶31

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:

¶32

“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

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.1880 of 2025

¶34

¶35

2025:KER:21934

¶36

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.”

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.1880 of 2025

¶39

¶40

2025:KER:21934

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

4 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

¶44

5. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record

¶45

the statement of the defacto complainant. The said direction was

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.1880 of 2025

¶47

¶48

2025:KER:21934

¶49

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 (3^rd 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

¶50

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 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the relief sought for herein be allowed, in view of the settlement between the parties. This

¶51

Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide.

¶52

Crl.M.C.No.1880 of 2025

¶53

2025:KER:21934

¶54

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶57

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶58

¶59

Crl.M.C.No.1880 of 2025

¶60

¶61

2025:KER:21934

¶62

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1880/2025

¶63

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶64

ANNEXURE A1A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT DATED 2.7.2023 ON THE FILES OF
VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION IN FIR NO 673 OF
2023

¶65

ANNEXURE A2A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED
BY THE POLICE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1 NEDUMANGAD DATED
25.9.2023

¶66

ANNEXURE A3THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT /SHAIBA HAYUM DATED 17.2.2025

Saajid v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saajid v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harkish Sreethu Vs State of Kerala

Anees.K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sadikk Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Sasi a Vs State of Kerala

Arshad C.P. Vs State of Kerala