[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rashid vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 509 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:14429
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. 509 OF 2026
CRIME NO.89/2025 OF VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
IN SC NO.1248 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT - II, MANJERI / II ADDITIONAL MACT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MANJERI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED RASHID,
AGED 19 YEARS
S/O. KUNHAHAMMED,KONALA HOUSE,
MANGATTUPALAM,KODUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676504
BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SMT.N.P.ASHA
SHRI.ABDUSSAMAD K.K.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND VICTIM:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 SUHAIB,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. USMAN,CHEMMUKAN HOUSE, VEENALUKKAL,
PARAPPOOR.P.O.MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503
BY ADV SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK
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. 509 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:14429
ORDER
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2026
The petitioner is the accused in S.C No.1248/2025 on
the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri ('Trial
Court', in short), which has originated from Crime
No.89/2025, registered by the Vengara Police Station,
Malappuram, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2) and 109(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS', in short).
2. The substratum of the prosecution case is
that:
The petitioner, out of his previous animosity towards
the defacto complainant (2nd respondent), had on
07.02.2025, at around 21:20 hours, attacked him with a
knife aiming to cut his neck, which was blocked by the
defacto complainant with his hands and he suffered injuries
both on his hands as well as on his left thigh. The
petitioner's intention was to murder the 2nd respondent.
Thus, the petitioner has committed the above offences.
CRL.MC NO. 509 OF 2026
2026:KER:14429
3. The petitioner has invoked the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', in short), to quash
all further proceedings in the above case. It is asserted that
the dispute that led to the filing of the complaint has been
amicably settled between the petitioner and the 2 nd
respondent, who has executed Annexure-III affidavit,
affirming the settlement.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and the
learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Counsel for the 2 nd respondent submit that with
the intervention of well-wishers and friends, the parties have
arrived at an amicable settlement. The 2 nd respondent does
not desire to prosecute the case against the petitioner. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of
the Honourable Supreme Court in Naushey Ali v. State of
U.P. [(2025) KHC 6131] in support of the contention that,
CRL.MC NO. 509 OF 2026
2026:KER:14429
there is no legal prohibition in this Court quashing a
criminal proceedings involving in an offence under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code/109 BNS. All that this Court
has to look into is the surrounding circumstances, the nature
of the weapon used and the nature of injuries suffered by the
victim. The learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the
attention of this Court to the accident-cum-wound certificate
to substantiate that the 2nd respondent had only suffered
lacerated wounds on his hands and his left thigh. He also
contended that, other than for the bare allegation that the
petitioner had attempted to murder the 2 nd respondent,
there is nothing that can be substantiated by the prosecution
in this regard. Therefore, this Court may quash the entire
proceedings as against the petitioner.
6. 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. He does not seriously dispute the
submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
CRL.MC NO. 509 OF 2026
2026:KER:14429
and the 2nd respondent. He concedes to the fact that the 2 nd
respondent has not suffered any serious injury, which is
corroborated by the accident-cum-wound certificate.
7. 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 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's case [supra], 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.
CRL.MC NO. 509 OF 2026
2026:KER:14429
8. On an overall consideration of the facts, the
materials on record, the law on the point and particularly
after going through the accident-cum-wound certificate of
the 2nd respondent, which substantiates that the 2 nd
respondent has only suffered lacerated wounds on his hands
and right leg and further that the petitioner was aged 18
years at the time of the incident, I am satisfied that this is a
fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS, particularly since there is 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.
In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed. Accordingly,
Annexure-I FIR, Annexure-II Final Report and all further
CRL.MC NO. 509 OF 2026
2026:KER:14429
proceedings in SC No.1248/2025 on the file of the Additional
Sessions Court-II, Manjeri, as against the petitioner, are
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
CRL.MC NO. 509 OF 2026
2026:KER:14429
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 509 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-I A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.89/2025 OF
VENGARA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE-II CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.89/2025 OF VENGARA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE-III NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.01.2026 SWORN
BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 BEFORE THE NOTARY
PUBLIC
ANNEXURE-IV A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE
PETITIONER
