Kerala High Court
M. Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:83330
CRL.MC NO. 4725 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. 4725 OF 2025
CRIME NO.2/2025 OF Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.01.2025 IN FIR NO.2
OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - VIII, ERNAKULAM
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.01.2025 IN FIR NO.2
OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - VIII, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
M. KUMAR
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O MANI,15-1-5D, NEW COLONY, PONMANAI, KALKULAM,
KANNIYAKUMARI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU, PIN - 629161
BY ADV SRI.K.K.SATHISH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA ,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31, PIN - 682031
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PANANGAD POLICE STATION, PANANGAD., PIN - 682506
3 VIPIN VARGHESE @ VIPIN E.V,
VARGHESE E.C,ELLATHU CHIRA HOUSE, KUMBALAM,
P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682506
2025:KER:83330
CRL.MC NO. 4725 OF 2025
2
BY ADV SRI.THOMSON T.KURICHIYANI
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.P. PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:83330
CRL.MC NO. 4725 OF 2025
3
ORDER
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2025
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 2/2025,
registered by the Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam,
alleging the commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 281, 125(a), and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, (BNS) and Sections 134A and 134B of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (M.V. Act, in short)
2. The petitioner contends that the dispute that led to
the registration of the crime has been amicably settled
between him and the 3rd respondent, who has executed
Annexure A2 affidavit, affirming the settlement.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, 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 third
2025:KER:83330
CRL.MC NO. 4725 OF 2025
respondent has no subsisting grievance and do 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 State has no objection in the offences
under the BNS being quashed. Since the offences in
respect of Sections 134A and 134B of the M.V.Act is
committed against the State, the settlement arrived at
between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is
irrelevant. The parties cannot have a settlement of the
disputes in respect of such offences. Therefore, the
petitioner's prayer to quash Annexure A1 FIR in respect of
the said offences may be rejected.
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 Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], State of Madhya
2025:KER:83330
CRL.MC NO. 4725 OF 2025
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. In the aforesaid decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has clearly held that the disputes that have amicably
settled between the parties, which is not against public
interest or there is no element of social concern, can be
quashed by exercising the inherent powers of this Court.
I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned
Public Prosecutor that since the offences under M.V. Act
charged against the petitioner is not a matter that is
committed against the 3rd respondent, but, it is an offence
2025:KER:83330
CRL.MC NO. 4725 OF 2025
against the society at large, I am not inclined to quash
Annexure A1 FIR in its entirety. Nonetheless, as the
offences allegedly committed against the 3rd respondent,
can obviously be quashed, as they are not heinous or
serious in nature, and there is no public interest involved.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the Crl.M.C is partly
allowed. Accordingly, Annexure A1 FIR, in respect of the
offences punishable under Section 281, 125(a) and 125(b)
of the BNS, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
It would be upto the petitioner to appear before the Trial
Court and plead guilty in respect of the offences under
the M.V. Act. If the petitioner pleads guilty to the said
charges, the Magistrate shall consider the same in
accordance with law.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm4/11/2025
2025:KER:83330
CRL.MC NO. 4725 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO. 2/2025 DT.
02/01/2025
Annexure-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT DT.19/05/2025
