Kerala High Court
Tharunkumar vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:83229
CRL.MC NO. 9298 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9298 OF 2025
CRIME NO.117/2019 OF Pulikeezhu Police Station, Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1967 OF 2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,THIRUVALLA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:
1 THARUNKUMAR
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O RAMESHKUMAR, SREEDEVI NIVAS, NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE,
MANIPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689110
2 RENJITHKRISHNAN
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O SREERAMAKRISHNAN, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, NEDUMPRAM
VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689110
3 SYAM S KUMAR
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O SHOBANAKUMAR, MAMMUTTIL VEEDU, NEDUMPRAM
VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689110
4 SARATH KUMAR
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O RAVEENDRAN, KARUVELIL VEEDU, NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE,
KARATHRA COLONY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689110
5 SUNEESH UTHAMAN @ UNDARAJAN
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O UTHAMAN, KAKKURINNAYIL VEEDU, NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689110
2025:KER:83229
CRL.MC NO. 9298 OF 2025
2
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.RADHIKA S.ANIL
SHRI.NIJAZ JALEEL
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689104
3 NIKHIL PRASAD
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O PRASAD, KOCHUPURAYIL VEEDU, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689101
4 AKHIL PRASAD
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O PRASAD, KOCHUPURAYIL VEEDU, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689101
BY ADV
SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, SR.PP
SHRI.MOHANAN M.K.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:83229
CRL.MC NO. 9298 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 9298 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2025
ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in
C.C.No.1967 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class-I, Thiruvalla, which has arisen
from Crime No.117 of 2019 registered by the Pulikeezhu
Police Station, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 427
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
2025:KER:83229
CRL.MC NO. 9298 OF 2025
respondents 3 and 4, who have executed Annexure C and D
affidavits, affirming the settlement.
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
2025:KER:83229
CRL.MC NO. 9298 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:83229
CRL.MC NO. 9298 OF 2025
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 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 A FIR, Annexure B Final Report and all further
proceedings in C.C.No.1967 of 2019 on the file of the above
court, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:83229
CRL.MC NO. 9298 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME
NO. 117/2019 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION
DATED 02.02.2019
Annexure-B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 117/2019 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE
STATION DATED 25.10.2019
Annexure-C AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
11.10.2025
Annexure-D AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
11.10.2025
