[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Thafeed@ Nafeed @ K.N.Muhammed Nafeed vs The State Of Kerala on 1 April, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:29364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 2692 OF 2026
CRIME NO.840/2024 OF Mattancherry Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.820 OF 2024
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANCHERY
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:
1 THAFEED@ NAFEED @ K.N.MUHAMMED NAFEED
AGED 21 YEARS
RESIDING AT 13/508, CHITHUPARAMBU,
CHULLICKKAL, THOPPUMPADY S.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682005
2 RIZWAN SANOJ,
AGED 20 YEARS
RESIDING AT 7/738, KALLARAKKAPARAMBU,
JEW TOWN, MATTANCHERRY TOWN,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682002
3 NEPPY@MUHAMMED RAMZI K.A,
AGED 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT KALLUMVEETTIL HOUSE,
KOCHANGADI, CHULLICKAL, THOPPUMPADY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682005
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ANOOP V.NAIR
KUM.PARVATHY VIJAYAN
SMT.SHARANNYA P.
SHRI.ATHUL P.
SMT.C.A.BEEMA BEEVI
SMT.FERRA A THANKAM
CRL.MC NO.2692 of 2026 2
2026:KER:29364
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION,
MATTANCHERRY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682002
3 ARJUN BABA SAHIB,
AGED 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT NANDANAM, POIMBLASSERY LANE,
RAVIPURAM, M.G.ROAD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682016
BY ADV SMT.SRUTHY UNNIKRISHNAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.2692 of 2026 3
2026:KER:29364
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.
820/2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate-V, Mattancherry ('Trial Court', for
short), which has originated from Crime No. 840/2024
registered by the Mattancherry Police Station,
Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offence
punishable under Section 115(2) read with Section 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
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
third respondent, who has executed Annexure III
affidavit, affirming the settlement.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the
CRL.MC NO.2692 of 2026 4
2026:KER:29364
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
party respondent has no subsisting grievance and does
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 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
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
CRL.MC NO.2692 of 2026 5
2026:KER:29364
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
between the parties and restore peace. Hence, this Court
is persuaded to hold that this is a fit case to exercise its
inherent jurisdiction.
CRL.MC NO.2692 of 2026 6
2026:KER:29364
In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed.
Accordingly, Annexure I FIR, Annexure II final report in
Crime No. 840/2024 of the Mattancherry Police Station
and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 820/2024 of the
Trial Court, as against the petitioners, are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk
2026:KER:29364
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 2692 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
840/2024 ON THE FILE OF MATTANCHERRY
POLICE STATION, PENDING AS C.C. NO.
820/2024 ON THE FILE OF JFCM-V,
MATTANCHERRY
Annexure II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED
IN C.C. NO. 820/2024, BEFORE THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V,
MATTANCHERRY
Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ENTERED BY THE
DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN
THE MATTER SHOWING THAT THE MATTER IS
SETTLED, DATED 28.02.2026
