[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
James vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:97249
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. 10782 OF 2025
CRIME NO.955/2010 OF Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.122 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2:
JAMES,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O MATHAAI, PAATUKULATHIL HOUSE,
CHERUMUGHAMURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA,, PIN - 690504
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KIRAN RAJ R.
SHRI.ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
SHRI.TITTU JOSE CHACKANAD
SHRI.PRAMOD B.
SHRI.JAYAMOHAN P.K.
SMT.SANCHANA S.
SMT.MEERA PRASAD
SHRI.AKSHAY BABURAJ
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 SHIBU T. PURUSHOTHANAM,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O PURUSHOTHANAM,THUNIYOOTU VEEDU,
THUNIYOODU, ELAVUMTHITTA MURI,
MEZHUVELI VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689507
CRL.MC NO. 10782 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:97249
3 SARATH,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O VISWAMBHARAN, SARATH BHAVAN,
THOONIYODU, ELAVUMTHITTA MURI,
MEZHUVELI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689507
BY ADV SHRI.NAJUMAL A.
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- 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:
CRL.MC NO. 10782 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:97249
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the second accused in S.C. No.
122/2024 on the file of the Court of Session,
Pathanamthitta, ('Trial Court', for short), which has
originated from Crime No. 955/2010 registered by the
Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta District,
alleging the commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147 and 323 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of India's
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The petitioner has 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 petitioner and the
respondents 2 and 3, who have executed Annexures A3
CRL.MC NO. 10782 OF 2025 4
2025:KER:97249
and A4 affidavits, affirming the settlement.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the
learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.
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 respondents 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court
CRL.MC NO. 10782 OF 2025 5
2025:KER:97249
in 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 justice.
Furthermore, the settlement would promote harmony
CRL.MC NO. 10782 OF 2025 6
2025:KER:97249
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
in Crime No. 955/2010 of the Pandalam Police Station
and all further proceedings in S.C. No. 122/2024 of the
Trial Court, as against the petitioner, are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/
CRL.MC NO. 10782 OF 2025 7
2025:KER:97249
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10782 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R REGISTERED IN
CRIME NO. 955/2010 OF PANDALAM POLICE
STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 28.09.2010
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
27.01.2011 IN S.C. NO. 122/2024 ON THE
FILES OF DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
Annexure A3 A ORGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.08.2024
Annexure A4 A ORGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.08.2024
