[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Harshad vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:9004
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. 589 OF 2026
CRIME NO.759/2024 OF Chavakkad Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.751 OF 2025
OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 5:
1 HARSHAD,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. KALAM,PUTHANVEETIL HOUSE,
THOTTAPPU LIGHT HOUSE,CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680514
2 MUHAMMED ANSAR,
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. BHADUSHA,CHALIL HOUSE,
VELICHENNA PADI,ANCHANGADI,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680514
3 SAHIL,
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. JEELANI,PUTHUVEETIL
HOUSE,MUNAKKAKADAVU,CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680514
4 NOUSHEER,
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O NOUSHAD, KADAVIL HOUSE,
MUNDAKKAKADAVU,CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680514
5 LEKHMIL,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY,PUTHUVEETIL HOUSE,
ANCHANGADI, ASHUPATHRIPADI,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680514
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.K.SUBEESH
CRL.MC NO.589 of 2026 2
2026:KER:9004
SRI.ROY THOMAS (MUVATTUPUZHA)
SHRI.R.VINU RAJ
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 MUHAMMED UVAISE,
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O SAIDHU MUHAMMED,
RESIDING AT CHAKKARA HOUSE,
ERATTUPUZHA DESOM,KADAPPURAMP.O.,
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR CITY,
KERALA,, PIN - 680514
3 SALIH,
AGED 23 YEARS
SON OF KUNHI MOIDU,
RESIDING AT KAVUNGAL KARUTHA HOUSE,
ANJANGADI, KADAPPURAM P.O.,
THRISSUR CITY, KERALA - 680514, AND
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO. 602,
YASMIN BUILDING, AJMAN HAMIDIYAH 1,
AL IMAM SHAFEE STREET,AJMAN, UAE,
HOLDING PASSPORT NO. V0858992
BY ADV SMT.SRADHA MOHAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
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.589 of 2026 3
2026:KER:9004
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in S.C.No.
751/2025 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III,
Thrissur ('Trial Court', for short), which has originated
from Crime No. 759/2024 registered by the Chavakad
Police Station, Thrissur District, alleging the commission
of the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2),
191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 110 read with Section
190 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
respondents 2 and 3, who have executed Annexures III
and IV affidavits, affirming the settlement.
CRL.MC NO.589 of 2026 4
2026:KER:9004
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the
learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.
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.589 of 2026 5
2026:KER:9004
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.589 of 2026 6
2026:KER:9004
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 I FIR, Annexure II Final Report in
Crime No. 759/2024 of the Chavakad Police Station and
all further proceedings in S.C. No. 751/2025 of the Trial
Court, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk
2026:KER:9004
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 589 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO.759/2024 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT DATED
11/09/2024
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.759/2024 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT DATED 08.12.2024 ALONG
WITH THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
Annexure III THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT DATED 12.12.2025
Annexure IV THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.1.2026
