Anees.K.P. Vs State of Kerala

¶1

2025:KER:21815

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 7899 OF 2023

¶7

CRIME NO.879/2021 OF Panur Police Station, Kannur

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.710 OF
2022 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THALASSERY

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶10

1ANEES.K.P.
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.YOUSUF HAJI, MADATHIL THAZHE KUNIYIL (H),
PANOOR.P.O., KANNUR., PIN – 670692

¶11

2YOUSUF HAJI
AGED 75 YEARS
S/O.ABDULLA, MADATHIL THAZHE KUNIYIL (H),
PANOOR.P.O., KANNUR., PIN – 670692

¶12

3SAINABA.O.K.
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O. YOUSUF HAJI, MADATHIL THAZHE KUNIYIL (H),
PANOOR.P.O., KANNUR., PIN – 670692

¶13

4HARIF.K.K.
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.YOUSUF HAJI, MADATHIL THAZHE KUNIYIL (H),
PANOOR.P.O., KANNUR., PIN - 670692

¶14

BY ADVS.
D.ARUN BOSE
K.VISWAN

¶15

2025:KER:21815

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023

¶17

:2:

¶18

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶19

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

¶20

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670692

¶21

3SUHANA.C.K.
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O.MAHAMOOD.C.K., CHERIYAKUYYERI,
CHERUVANCHERRY.P.O., KANNUR, KERALA., PIN -
670650

¶22

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

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023

¶25

2025:KER:21815

¶26

:3:

¶27

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023

¶29

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2025

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

2025:KER:21815

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023

¶35

:4:

¶36

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

¶37

below:

¶38

“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

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023

¶40

2025:KER:21815

¶41

:5:

¶42

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.”

¶43

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

¶44

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
nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.879/2021 of Panoor Police
Station, Kannur, now pending as C.C.No.710/2022

¶46

2025:KER:21815

¶47

Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023

¶48

:6:

¶49

before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Thalassery. The offences alleged are under
Sections 406,498A 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 3rdrespondent/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
defacto complainant are settled amicably in Court
mediation and that the defacto complainant is
currently remarried and nine months pregnant. The

¶52

2025:KER:21815

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023

¶54

:7:

¶55

defacto complainant is no longer interested to
continue with 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-4, wherein she would unequivocally state
that the disputes have been amicably settled and
that marriage between the defacto complainant and
the 1st petitioner has been dissolved by way of the
pronouncement of Talaq. 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 own
volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This
Court is therefore convinced that the settlement
arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel
for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant would
also endorse that the quashment sought for can be
allowed.

¶56

2025:KER:21815

¶57

Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023

¶58

:8:

¶59

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.

¶60

2025:KER:21815

¶61

Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023

¶62

In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is
allowed. Annexure-3 Final Report and all further
proceedings in C.C.No.710/2022 before the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery, are
hereby quashed.

¶63

sd/-

¶64

C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶65

Raj.

¶66

2025:KER:21815

¶67

Crl.M.C.No.7899 of 2023

¶68

:10:

¶69

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7899/2023

¶70

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶71

Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P.NO.1294 OF 2021
DATED 09.11.2021 FILED BEFORE THE
HONOURABLE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY.

¶72

Annexure 2TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME
NO.879/2021 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION
DATED 11.11.2021.

¶73

Annexure 3CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.879/2021 OF PANOOR POLICE
STATION DATED 24.03.2022.

¶74

Annexure 4AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 23.01.2023.

Anees.K.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anees.K.P. 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

Vikraman Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Eldho Alias Vs State of Kerala

Harkish Sreethu Vs State of Kerala

Sadikk Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev.S. Vs State of Kerala