[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
A.C Afsal vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 1005 OF 2026 1
2026:KER:14417
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1005 OF 2026
CRIME NO.772/2017 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
IN CC NO.1190 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS , PAYYANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6:
1 A.C AFSAL,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O MAYIL. K, A. C HOUSE, KAAVUMTHALA,
PADANNA AMSHAM, PAYYANUR, KANNUR -, PIN - 670307
2 ABDULA T. P,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O MUSTHAFFA U. K, BUSHRA MANZIL, KAAVUMTHALA,
PADATH PAYYANUR, KANNUR - 670307
3 MUHAMMED AFSAL,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O ABDUL JABBAR, NOORJAHAN MANZIL, VADAKEPURAM,
PADNNA AMSHAM, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR, PIN - 670307
4 NUSSAIFUDEEN M.P,
AGED 27 YEARS
ABDUL MAJEED, MODAPURAM HOUSE, MUSAHAJI MUKKU,PADANNA
AMSHAM, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR, PIN - 670307
5 MUHAMMED NABEEL T.K, M
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O NABEEM T.K.M, MISHRIYA MANZIL, KAVUMTHALA,
PADANNA AMSHAM, PAYYANUR, KANNUR, PIN - 670307
6 SUBAIR. A. C,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O LATHEEF. P, A.C HOUSE, KAAVUMTHALA, PADANNA
AMSHAM, PAYYANUR, KANNUR - 670307 S/O LATHEEF. P,
CRL.MC NO. 1005 OF 2026 2
2026:KER:14417
A.C HOUSE, KAAVUMTHALA, PADANNA AMSHAM, PAYYANUR,
KANNUR - 670307
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAHUL SASI
SMT.NEETHU PREM
SMT.ANU ABRAHAM
SMT.P.ARDRA MENON
SHRI.ANANDHU S.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 MUBASHIR.K
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O MUSTHAFA KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, PAYYANKI, KAITHAKKAD,
HOSDURG, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671315
3 FASLU RAHMAN K.P,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O UMMER HAJI U.M, KALLUKETT PURAYIL, THAQWA,
KAITHAKKAD, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD, PIN - 67131
BY ADV SHRI.MIDU DEV PREM
SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1005 OF 2026 3
2026:KER:14417
ORDER
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2026
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 6 in
C.C.No.1190/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Payyannur, which has arisen from
Crime No.772/2017 registered by the Payyannur Police
Station, Kannur, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and
506(i) 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 respondents 2 and 3,
who have executed Annexures A3 and A4 affidavits,
affirming the settlement.
CRL.MC NO. 1005 OF 2026 4
2026:KER:14417
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 respondents 2
and 3 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
CRL.MC NO. 1005 OF 2026 5
2026:KER:14417
laid down by 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 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
CRL.MC NO. 1005 OF 2026 6
2026:KER:14417
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.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Accordingly,
Annexure A1 First Information Report, Annexure A2 Final
Report in Crime No.772/2017 of the Payyannur Police
Station, Kannur, and all further proceedings in
C.C.No.1190/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Payyannur, as against the
petitioners, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
CRL.MC NO. 1005 OF 2026 7
2026:KER:14417
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1005 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH
FIS IN CRIME NO. 772 OF 2017 DATED
17.08.2017 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
ALONG WITH MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.
772 OF 2017 DATED 17.08.2017 OF PAYYANNUR
POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.12.2025
ANNEXURE A4 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.06.2025
