[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Janardanan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:97203
CRL.MC NO. 10891 OF 2025
1
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. 10891 OF 2025
CRIME NO.844/2019 OF Pallickal Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1127 OF
2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,ATTINGAL
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:
1 JANARDANAN NAIR,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O SANKARANKUTTY NAIR PADDIPURA VEEDU,
KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, VARINJAM PO, KOLLAM
(DIST), PIN - 691579
2 SUDHEER,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O SANKARANKUTTY NAIR RAMYA BHAVAN
KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, VARINJAM PO, KOLLAM
(DIST)., PIN - 691579
3 UNNIKRISHNAN,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR UTHRADAM VEEDU,
KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, VARINJAM PO, KOLLAM
(DIST)., PIN - 691579
BY ADV SRI.M.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
2025:KER:97203
CRL.MC NO. 10891 OF 2025
2
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PALLICKAL POLICE STATION, PALLICKAL PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (DIST)., PIN - 695604
3 AJIKUMAR,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI KRISHNAVILASOM VEEDU,
PAIVELI, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, PALLICKAL PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (DIST)., PIN - 695604
4 VIJAYA KUMAR,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI DEVI KRIPA PAIVELI,
PALLICKAL VILLAGE, PALLICKAL PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (DIST)., PIN - 695604
BY ADV SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR
SR.PP. SMT. SEETHA S.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:97203
CRL.MC NO. 10891 OF 2025
3
ORDER
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2025
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in
C.C.No.1127/2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal (Trial Court), which
has originated from Crime No.844/2019 registered by
the Pallikkal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
alleging the commission of the offences punishable
under Sections 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 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 respondents 3 and 4, who have executed Annexures
2 and 3 affidavits, affirming the settlement.
2025:KER:97203
CRL.MC NO. 10891 OF 2025
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the
learned Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.
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
respondents 3 and 4 have no subsisting grievance and
do not wish to pursue the prosecution, and have 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:97203
CRL.MC NO. 10891 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:97203
CRL.MC NO. 10891 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 1 charge sheet and all further proceedings in
C.C.No.1127/2019 of the Trial Court, as against the
petitioners, are hereby quashed.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm17/12/2025
2025:KER:97203
CRL.MC NO. 10891 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10891 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET
IN CRIME NO. 844/2019 OF PALLICKAL
POLICE STATION
Annexure 2 AN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 24.11.2025
Annexure 3 AN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 31.08.2025
