Gazal Jalal Vs State of Kerala

¶1

2025:KER:21792

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

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

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 625 OF 2025

¶7

CRIME NO.908/2020 OF North Paravur Police Station,

¶8

Ernakulam

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1132 OF

¶10

2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- III,

¶11

NORTH PARAVUR

¶12

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶13

1 GAZAL JALAL

¶14

AGED 35 YEARS

¶15

S/O JALAL MUHAMMED, KARUPPAM VEEDU(BENZI
HOUSE), THRIKKAVU KARA, PONNANI NAGARAM
VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, PONNANI P.O.,
MALAPURAM, PIN - 679577

¶16

2 RAHANA JALAL

¶17

AGED 58 YEARS

¶18

W/O JALAL MUHAMMED , KARUPPAM VEEDU(BENZI
HOUSE), THRIKKAVU KARA, PONNANI NAGARAM
VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, PONNANI P.O.,
MALAPURAM, PIN - 679577

¶19

3 ABDUL NASAR AGED 65 YEARS

¶20

S/O KUTTI ALI, KARUPPAM VEEDU, THRIKKAVU KARA,
PONNANI NAGARAM VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, PONNANI
P.O., MALAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT NOWROJI
MANSION CHS LTD, FLAT NO. 4, 3RD FLOOR, WODE
HOUSE ROAD, NP ROAD COLABA, MUMBAI, MUMBAI GPO,
MAHARASTRA, PIN - 400001

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025

¶22

2025:KER:21792

¶23

:2:

¶24

4NOORJAHAN
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O ABDUL NASAR, KARUPPAM VEEDU, THRIKKAVU
KARA, PONNANI NAGARAM VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK,
PONNANI P.O., MALAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT
NOWROJI MANSION CHS LTD, FLAT NO. 4, 3RD FLOOR,
WODE HOUSE ROAD, NP ROAD COLABA, MUMBAI, MUMBAI
GPO, MAHARASTRA, PIN - 400001

¶25

BY ADVS.
M.K.FAISAL
AKHIL FAISAL

¶26

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶27

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

¶28

2DR. RIDHUVANA ABDULKAREEM
D/O ABDULKAREEM, RIDHUVANA MAHAL, ST. GERMAINS
CHURCH ROAD, PARAVOOTHARA KARA, PARVUR VILLAGE,
PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683513

¶29

BY ADV K.G.PREETHY

¶30

SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP)

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025

¶33

2025:KER:21792

¶34

:3:

¶35

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025

¶37

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2025

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

2025:KER:21792

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025

¶43

:4:

¶44

in B.S.Joshi (supra) are relevant and extracted here

¶45

below:

¶46

“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

¶47

2025:KER:21792

¶48

Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025

¶49

:5:

¶50

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.”

¶51

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

¶52

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.

¶53

3. In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused
persons in Crime No.908/2020 of North Paravur Police
Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.1132/2021

¶54

2025:KER:21792

¶55

Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025

¶56

:6:

¶57

before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-
III, North Paravur. The offences alleged are under
Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 4 and 2(c) Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. 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.

¶58

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

¶59

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
recorded over the phone, was handed over. On perusal
of the same, it is clear that the issues between the
petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled

¶60

2025:KER:21792

¶61

Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025

¶62

:7:

¶63

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 (2nd respondent herein) as
Annexure-3, wherein she would unequivocally state
that the disputes have been amicably settled and
that the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant
have dissolved their marriage through a Mubarat
Agreement. Furthermore, the disputes between the 1st
petitioner and the defacto complainant regarding the
custody of child and gold, were also settled, and a
compromise petition on that behalf has been filed
before the Family Court. The defacto complainant
would also swear that she is not interested to
proceed with the prosecution case and that she has
no objection in quashing the case against the
petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her own
volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This
Court is therefore convinced that the settlement

¶64

2025:KER:21792

¶65

Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025

¶66

:8:

¶67

arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel
for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would
also endorse that the quashment sought for can be
allowed.

¶68

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.

¶69

2025:KER:21792

¶70

Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025

¶71

In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is
allowed. Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No. 908/2020,
Annexure-2 Final Report and all further proceedings
in C.C.No.1132/2021 of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur, are hereby
quashed.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶74

Raj.

¶75

2025:KER:21792

¶76

Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2025

¶77

:10:

¶78

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 625/2025

¶79

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶80

Annexure.1THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN
CRIME NO.908/2020 OF NORTH PARAVUR
POLICE STATION DATED.27.8.2020

¶81

Annexure.2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET
IN CRIME NO.908/2020 OF NORTH PARAVUR
POLICE STATION

¶82

Annexure.3THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT /DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED
05-01-2025

Gazal Jalal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gazal Jalal 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

Harkish Sreethu Vs State of Kerala

Anees.K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sadikk Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Saajid Vs State of Kerala

Sasi a Vs State of Kerala