[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Chinjithkumar T.S. @Shimjith @Jinjith ... vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:94195
CRL.MC NO. 10071 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 10071 OF 2025
CRIME NO.408/2021 OF Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1118 OF 2021
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:
1 CHINJITHKUMAR T.S. @SHIMJITH @JINJITH KUMAR,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. SUDHEEB KUMAR, THANDENKKATTIL, CHIRACKAL,
KATTAKAMPAL P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
680544
2 RAZACK KUTTIYIL MOOSA @RAZAK,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. MOOSA KUTTIYIL, KUTTIYIL, PERUMTHURUTHY,
PAZHANJI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680542
3 MUHAMMED FAZIL E.K. @MUHAMMED, FAZIL
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. KUNJIPPA, ENCHIKKALAYIL, CHIRACKAL,
KATTAKAMPAL P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA-680544
4 ABDUL MAJEED,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. KUNJAHAMED, NAMBIARUVALAPPIL HOUSE, PAZHANJI,
PERUMTHURUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
680542
5 HAKKIM V.K. @HAKEEM,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. KUNJALI HAJI, VELICHAPPATTIL, PATTITHADAM,
PAZHANJI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680542
2025:KER:94195
CRL.MC NO. 10071 OF 2025
2
BY ADV SHRI.M.R.DHANIL
RESPONDENTS/STATE/ DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682031
2 MAJITHA @MAJIDA,
AGED 44 YEARS
D/O. BALAN, MANKADAVIL HOUSE, PERUMTHURUTHI DESAM,
PAZHANJI VILLAGE, PAZHANJI P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680542
BY ADV SMT.SENITTA P. JOJO
SR.PP SMT. SEETHA S.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:94195
CRL.MC NO. 10071 OF 2025
3
ORDER
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2025
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 5 in
C.C.No.1118/2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam (Trial Court),
which has arisen from Crime No.408/2021 registered by
the Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur, alleging the
commission of the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 294(b), 447 r/w Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioners have invoked the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash all
further proceedings in the above case. It is asserted that
the dispute that led to the registration of the crime has
been amicably settled between the petitioners and the
2nd respondent, who has executed Annexure A3
affidavit, affirming the settlement.
2025:KER:94195
CRL.MC NO. 10071 OF 2025
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the
learned Counsel for the second respondent.
4. The learned counsel on either side submits that,
with the intervention of relatives and well-wishers, the
parties have resolved their disputes amicably. The
second respondent has no subsisting grievance and does
not wish to pursue the prosecution, and has no objection
to the proceedings being quashed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions,
submits that the Investigating Officer has reported that
the parties have arrived at a genuine and bona fide
settlement. The State has no objection to the Criminal
Miscellaneous case being allowed.
6. The scope and ambit of the inherent powers of
this Court to quash criminal proceedings on the ground
of settlement between the parties have been
authoritatively laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
2025:KER:94195
CRL.MC NO. 10071 OF 2025
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], State
of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019)
5 SCC 688], Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. [(2025) 4 SCC
78], and in a host of judicial pronouncements. It is held
that in cases where the offences are not grave or
heinous, and where the parties have amicably settled the
dispute, to secure the ends of justice, the High Court
may invoke its inherent powers to quash the
proceedings, particularly if continuation of the
prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose.
7. On an overall consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, and the materials on
record, I am satisfied that: the offences alleged are not
heinous or of a serious nature; no public interest or
element of societal concern is involved; the chances of
conviction are remote in view of the settlement; and the
continuation of the proceedings would merely burden
the judicial process without advancing the cause of
2025:KER:94195
CRL.MC NO. 10071 OF 2025
justice. Furthermore, the settlement would promote
harmony between the parties and restore peace. Hence,
this Court is persuaded to hold that this is a fit case to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed. Accordingly,
Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and all
further proceedings in C.C. No. 1118/2021 of the Trial
Court, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm5/12/2025
2025:KER:94195
CRL.MC NO. 10071 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10071 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CRIME/FIR NO.
408/2021 DATED 04/04/2021 OF KUNNAMKULAM
POLICE STATION, ALONG WITH THE FIRST
INFORMATION STATEMENT DATED 04/04/2021
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET/FINAL
REPORT IN CC NO. 1118/2021 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KUNNAMKULAM, ALONG WITH WITNESS
MEMORANDUM, ACCIDENT REGISTER-CUM- WOUND
CERTIFICATE, MAHAZAR AND STATEMENT OF
WITNESSES, DATED 16/11/2021 IN
CRIME/F.I.R. NO. 408/2021 OF KUNNAMKULAM
POLICE STATION
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED
16/08/2024
