[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muneer vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:30081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 2868 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.359 OF 2015
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS I ,PERUMBAVOOR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:
1 MUNEER,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O MOIDHU, AYATHU VEEDU, MH KAVALA,
VENGOLA VILLAGE , PERUMBAVUR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
2 ALSHAJ ISMAIL,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O ISMAIL, KIZHAKKAN VEEDU MH KAVALA,
VENGOLA VILLAGE , PERUMBAVUR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
3 FAROOQ ,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O ABDULLAH, KIZHAKKAN VEEDU,
MH KAVALA, VENGOLA VILLAGE
PERUMBAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
4 SHALUDHEEN,
AGED 37 YEARS
SHAMSUDHEEN, MALEKUDI VEEDU,
MH KAVALA, VENGOLA VILLAGE ,
PERUMBAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
5 ALI ABDUL KAREEM
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O KAREEM, VADAVANAKUDI VEEDU,
MH KAVALA, VENGOLA VILLAGE
PERUMBAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
BY ADV SRI.MANSOOR ALI
CRL.MC NO. 2868 of 2026 2
2026:KER:30081
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT AND THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PERUMBAVUR POLICE STATION
PERUMBAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683542
3 MANISH MANOHAR R,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O MANOHAR R, THEKKEDATH HOUSE,
IRUMBUPALAM, IRUMBUPALAM, VALARA DEVIKULAM,
IDUKKI, KERALA, PIN - 685561
BY ADV SHRI.PRATHAPAN N.R.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2868 of 2026 3
2026:KER:30081
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.No.
359/2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate-I, Perumbavoor ('Trial Court', for
short), which has originated from Crime No. 5016/2014
registered by the Perumbavoor Police Station, alleging
the commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 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
third respondent, who has executed Annexure A3
affidavit, affirming the settlement.
CRL.MC NO. 2868 of 2026 4
2026:KER:30081
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, 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
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],
CRL.MC NO. 2868 of 2026 5
2026:KER:30081
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
between the parties and restore peace. Hence, this Court
CRL.MC NO. 2868 of 2026 6
2026:KER:30081
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. 5016/2014 of the Perumbavoor Police
Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 359/2015
of the Trial Court, as against the petitioners, are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk
CRL.MC NO. 2868 of 2026 7
2026:KER:30081
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 2868 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 THE TRUE COPY OF F.I.R. IN CRIME NO
5016/2014 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION
DATED 25.11.2014
Annexure A-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC
359/2015 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT PERUMBAVOOR, DATED
NILL
Annexure-A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 24.03.2026
