[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sreedeep vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:97224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
CRL.MC NO. 10757 OF 2025
CRIME NO.320/2024 OF Kilimanoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.514 OF 2024
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IV, ATTINGAL
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 SREEDEEP,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SUBHASH KUMAR, KALLUVETTAMKUZHY HOUSE,
PONGANADU DESOM, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695601
2 JENEES,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.SATHYAN, REMANEEYAM VEEDU,
ULLOORKONAM, PONGANADU DESOM,
KILIMANOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 695601
3 DHANEESH,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.RAJAN, SHEELA BHAVAN, ULLOORKONAM,
PONGANADU DESOM, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 695601
4 VISHNU,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SURESH, PARAVILA VEEDU,
PONGANADU DESOM, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695601
5 AKHIL PRAKASH,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O.PRAKASH, ENNASSERY HOUSE,
PONGANADU DESOM, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695601
CRL.MC NO.10757 of 2025 2
2025:KER:97224
6 AMAL,
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O.THULASI, AYILYAM VEEDU, ULLOORKONAM,
PONGANADU DESOM, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 695601
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
SMT.SAFNA P.S.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 695601
3 RAHEEM,
S/O MAJEED, AGED 37 YEARS, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU,
ULLOORKONAM, PONGANADU DESOM,
KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN -
695601
BY ADV SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C S HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.10757 of 2025 3
2025:KER:97224
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2025
ORDER
The petitioners are accused in C.C.No. 514/2024 on
the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate-IV, Attingal ('Trial Court', for short), which
has originated from Crime No. 320/2024 registered by
the Kilimanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
Rural, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323
and 324 read with 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
third respondent, who has executed Annexure A3
affidavit, affirming the settlement.
CRL.MC NO.10757 of 2025 4
2025:KER:97224
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the
learned counsel for the third 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
party 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303],
CRL.MC NO.10757 of 2025 5
2025:KER:97224
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 justice.
Furthermore, the settlement would promote harmony
between the parties and restore peace. Hence, this Court
CRL.MC NO.10757 of 2025 6
2025:KER:97224
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
in Crime No. 320/2024 of the Kilimanoor Police Station
and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 514/2024 of the
Trial Court, as against the petitioners, are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/
CRL.MC NO.10757 of 2025 7
2025:KER:97224
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10757 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN
CRIME NO.320/2024 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE
STATION DATED 23.2.2024
Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 320/2024 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE
STATION DATED 20.3.2024
Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
REGARDING THE COMPROMISE DATED 24.11.2025
