Jijo K U Vs State of Kerala

¶1

2025:KER:24380

¶2

Crl.M.C No.990/2025

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

CRL.MC NO. 990 OF 2025

¶9

CRIME NO.2224/2020 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶10

AGAINST 1267 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶11

CLASS, KODUNGALLUR

¶12

PETITIONER/1 st ACCUSED:

¶13

JIJO K U,AGED 39 YEARS,S/O UNNIKRISHNAN K K,
KOLAPADATH HOUSE, PALIAMTHURUTH, KODUNGALLUR P.O,
KOTTAPPURAM, TRICHUR, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 680667

¶14

BY ADVS.
K.G.RAJEESH
S.SREEKUMAR (ADUKKATH)

¶15

RESPONDENT/STATE& DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶16

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

¶17

2 SREEKUTTY V R,AGED 33 YEARS D/O RADHAKRISHNAN V S, VALIYAVEETIL HOUSE, MALIYANKARA, MOOTHAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683516

¶18

BY ADV C.K.RAPHEEQUE

¶19

SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶21

ON 04.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶22

2025:KER:24380

¶23

Crl.M.C No.990/2025

¶24

-2-

¶25

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶26

======================= Crl.M.C No.990 of 2025

¶27

======================== Dated this the 4 th day of March, 2025

¶28

ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

[(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 B.S.Joshi (supra) are relevant and extracted here below:

¶31

“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

¶32

2025:KER:24380

¶33

Crl.M.C No.990/2025

¶34

-3-

¶35

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 noncompoundable 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.”

¶36

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

¶37

2025:KER:24380

¶38

Crl.M.C No.990/2025

¶39

-4-

¶40

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.

¶41

3 . In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sol e accused in Crime No.2224/2020 of Kodungalloor Police Station, Thrissur, now pending as C.C.No.1267/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungalloor. The offences alleged are under Section 403, 405, 406 & 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.

¶42

4 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

¶43

5 . When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The said

¶44

2025:KER:24380

¶45

Crl.M.C No.990/2025

¶46

-5-

¶47

direction was complied and the statement was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant are settled amicably and that the defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 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 - A4, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that the defacto complainant does not want to continue further with the prosecution case. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioners and has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The affidavit is sworn to on her free will. This Court has also perused Annexure-A2 compromise petition filed by the defacto complainant, the petitioner and his parents, in O.P.No.342/2023 before the Family Court, North Paravoor, wherein they would vouch the factum of settlement. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at

¶48

is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the

¶49

2025:KER:24380

¶50

Crl.M.C No.990/2025

¶51

-6-

¶52

2nd respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed.

¶53

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. This Court also notice that the offences under Sections 403 and 406 are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties.

¶54

In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. - Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure-A3 Final Report and all further

¶55

Crl.M.C No.990/2025

¶56

2025:KER:24380

¶57

-7-

¶58

proceedings in C.C.No.1267/2020 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungalloor, are hereby quashed.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶61

vdv

¶62

2025:KER:24380

¶63

Crl.M.C No.990/2025

¶64

-8-

¶65

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 990/2025

¶66

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶67

Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
2224/2020 OF KODUNGALLOOR POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶68

Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION
FILED BY PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT
IN O.P NO. 342 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF
FAMILY COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR DATED
23.12.2024

¶69

Annexure A3CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT/CHARGE SHEET DATED 20-08-2020 IN
C C NO. 1267 /2020 ON THE FILES OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KODUNGALLUR WHICH AROSE FROM CRIME NO.
2224/2020 OF KODUNGALLOOR POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT ALONG WITH
OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

¶70

Annexure A4ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 15.1.2025

Jijo K U v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jijo K U 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

Nizar.C.a Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudeen Vs State of Kerala

Shifad P U Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Faizal Vs State of Kerala

Hudaifa C.H, Vs State of Kerala

Sibi.v.T Vs State of Kerala