[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sidharth Vijayan vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:8994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 14TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 541 OF 2026
CRIME NO.573/2023 OF Murikkassery Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
1 SIDHARTH VIJAYAN,
AGED 21 YEARS
PAITTATTU, PANAMKUTTY, KONNATHADY P.O.,
UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685563
2 BASIL RENNY,
AGED 21 YEARS
CHERAKKAKUDI THEKKINTHANDU,
RAJAPURAM, VATHIKUDY,
IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685604
3 SARATH PRASAD,
AGED 26 YEARS
KOLANCHIRA, LAKSHAM KAVALA,
MANIYARANKUDY P.O., IDUKKI (PART),
IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685602
4 IBRAHIMKUTTY ASHRAF,
AGED 24 YEARS
KULATHINKAL, THADIYAMPADU P.O.,
THADIYAMPADU, IDUKKI (PART),
IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685602
BY ADV SMT.SHAHANAS SALMA ABBAS
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
CRL.MC NO.541 of 2026 2
2026:KER:8994
2 AMAL MANOJ,
AGED 20 YEARS
PULLOMPARAMBIL, ELAPPALLY P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685589
3 ELDHOSE BIJU,
AGED 22 YEARS
MEKKATTIL, THOTTIKKANAM,
MULAKUVALLY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685602
4 SHINTO JOHNSON,
AGED 24 YEARS
KALATHOOR, MULAKUVALLY P.O.,
KOKKARAKKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685602
5 ADVIN JOSE,
AGED 21 YEARS
VELAMKUNNEL, UPPUTHODU P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685604
BY ADV SHRI.STEPHY K REGI
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.541 of 2026 3
2026:KER:8994
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in S.T.No.
165/2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate-I, Idukki ('Trial Court', for short),
which has originated from Crime No. 573/2023
registered by the Murikkassery Police Station, Idukki
District, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b) and 323 read with
Section 34 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
respondents 2 to 5, who have executed Annexures 4 to 7
affidavits, affirming the settlement.
CRL.MC NO.541 of 2026 4
2026:KER:8994
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the
learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5.
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 respondents 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 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.541 of 2026 5
2026:KER:8994
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.541 of 2026 6
2026:KER:8994
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 1 FIR, Annexure 3 Final Report in
Crime No. 573/2023 of the Murikkassery Police Station
and all further proceedings in S.T. No. 165/2024 of the
Trial Court, as against the petitioners, are hereby
quashed.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk
CRL.MC NO.541 of 2026 7
2026:KER:8994
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 541 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO. 573/2023 DATED 05.11.2023
Annexure 2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST
INFORMATION STATEMENT DATED 05.11.2023
Annexure 3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
WITH ALL DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE CASE
Annexure 4 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 11.12.2025
Annexure 5 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 11.12.2025
Annexure 6 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY
RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 11.12.2025
Annexure 7 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY
RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED 11.12.2025
