Kerala High Court
Aneesh vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 9007 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:80319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9007 OF 2025
CRIME NO.100/2025 OF Valappad Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.231 OF 2025 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR
PETITIONER/S:
1 ANEESH
AGED 40 YEARS
THAIKATTU HOUSE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR, KERALA, INDIA,
PIN - 680568
2 KUTTAPAN ALIAS RAGESH
AGED 40 YEARS
NAYARUSSERY HOUSE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR, KERALA, INDIA,
PIN - 680568
3 GUNASEELAN
AGED 60 YEARS
THAIKATTU HOUSE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR, KERALA, INDIA,
PIN - 680568
BY ADV SHRI.JOHN TONY AKKARA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SUDHEERAN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.SUKUMARAN, PALLAYI HOUSE, KAZHIMBRAM DESOM,
VALAPPAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680568
CRL.MC NO. 9007 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:80319
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KARTHIK RAJAGOPAL
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SHRI.SHINTO MATHEW ABRAHAM
SMT.LEAH RACHEL NINAN
SHRI.MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
SHRI.KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
OTHER PRESENT:
PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 9007 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:80319
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
CRL.MC No. 9007 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025
ORDER
The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in
C.C.No.231/2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur, which arises out of
Crime No.100/2025 registered by the Valappad Police
Station, Thrissur for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 118(1) read with Section 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, to quash Annexures A1 FIR, A2 Final Report and all
further proceedings in C.C.No.231/2025. It is averred in the
criminal miscellaneous case that the dispute that led to the
registration of the crime has been amicably settled between
the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, who has affirmed
Annexure A3 affidavit, vouching for the settlement.
CRL.MC NO. 9007 OF 2025
2025:KER:80319
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the
learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. The learned counsel on either side submit that,
with the intervention of relatives and well-wishers, the
parties have resolved their differences amicably. The 2nd
respondent is no longer desirous of pursuing the
prosecution and has no objection in 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 bona fide settlement and the 2 nd
respondent has voluntarily executed the affidavit. The State
has no objection to the Crl.M.C. being allowed.
6. The 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
catena of decisions, has authoritatively held that in cases
CRL.MC NO. 9007 OF 2025
2025:KER:80319
where the offences are not grave or heinous, involving
mental depravity, and where the parties have amicably
settled the dispute, the High Court, to secure the ends of
justice, may invoke its inherent powers to quash the
proceedings, particularly if continuation of the prosecution
would serve no fruitful purpose.
7. On a consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, I am satisfied that: the
offences alleged are not heinous or of a serious nature,
involving mental depravity; no public interest or element of
societal concern is involved; the petitioners do not have
criminal antecedents; the 2nd respondent has voluntarily
executed the affidavit; 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 finds this as a fit case
to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
CRL.MC NO. 9007 OF 2025
2025:KER:80319
In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Accordingly,
Annexures A1 FIR, A2 Final report and all further
proceedings in C.C.No.231/2025 of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur, as against the
petitioners, are hereby quashed.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/27.10.25
CRL.MC NO. 9007 OF 2025
2025:KER:80319
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
100/2025 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 100/2025 OF VALAPPAD POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR
Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
