Muhammed Nabeel. R.S vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1841 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1841 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 February, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Muhammed Nabeel. R.S vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2026

                                                               2026:KER:15759

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

         THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947

                          CRL.MC NO. 9960 OF 2025

     CRIME NO.1403/2025 OF POONTHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


PETITIONER/S:

            MUHAMMED NABEEL. R.S
            AGED 25 YEARS
            S/O MUHAMMED RAFEEQ, RESIDING AT T.C. 46/718, MANICKAVILAKAM,
            POONTHURA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, -., PIN - 695026


            BY ADVS.
            SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
            SHRI.MUHAMMED SWADIQ




RESPONDENT/S:

     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

     2      XXXXXXXXXX
            XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX


            BY ADV SHRI.AJOY VENU


OTHER PRESENT:

            SR. PP. SRI. BREEZ.M.S


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2026,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.9960 of 2025




                                                           2026:KER:15759



                                      2


                                   ORDER

Dated this the 19th day of February, 2026

The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.1403 of

2024 of Poonthura Police Station, filed this Crl.M.C under

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing all

further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against

him, as revealed from the FIR, are under Sections 87 and 64

of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3A, 4, 5J(ii) and 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (PoCSO Act, in

short).

2. The prosecution case is that athe accused, with the

intetion to satisfy his sexual lust, made friendship with the

defacto complainant, who was a minor, promised to marry

her, took her to various places and committed penetrative

sexual assault upon her and as a result of which, she became

pregnant, and thereby he is alleged to have committed the

aforesaid offences.

2026:KER:15759

3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

now the entire dispute between the petitioner and the defacto

complainant has been settled and the petitoner already

married the defacto complainant and now they are living

happily as husband and wife. Therefore, he prayed for

quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned Cousnel for the 2 nd respondent/

defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The question whether a crime of aggravated

penetrative sexual assault registered under the provisions of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act could be

quashed taking note of the fact that the victim was married

by the accused was considered by a learned Single Judge of

this Court in the decision in xxxx v. State of Kerala, 2025

(4) KHC 471. After relying upon various decisions of the Apex

Court and High Courts, the learned Judge has culled out seven

significant aspects to be looked into. In paragraph No.26 of

the above decision, the learned Judge held as follows:

2026:KER:15759

(1) Unless the criminal proceedings are terminated

by quashing the same, there will be utter chaos, confusion

and even havoc in the life of the victim who married the

accused, and who is leading a happy life. In other words, the

life of the victim, the accused and the child, if any, in that

relationship will be ruined. Per contra, If the offence is

quashed, it will bring in harmony, peace and happiness, thus

promoting their family life.

(2) Unless, the Court choose to quash the

proceedings, the trauma/agony of the child/victim continues,

despite a genuine and bonafide settlement.

(3) Despite and de-hors a bonafide and genuine

settlement culminating in the marriage between the

petitioner/accused and the victim, if the criminal proceedings

are to continue - thereby compelling the parties to face the

trial - the same verge upon abuse of process.

(4) The ends of justice is in favour of quashment in

such category of cases, since it will be an injustice to

separate a well knit family by the continuance of the

proceedings.

2026:KER:15759

(5) Quashment of the proceedings will result in

rendering total and complete justice to the parties.

(6) When the crucial witness is the victim, who had

married the accused, there exists little chance for her to

speak against her own husband/ accused, wherefore, the

chances of conviction will be too bleak and remote :

2025:KER:52904 In other words, no fruitful purpose will be

served by continuance of the proceedings.

(7) Compelling the continuance of a proceedings,

which is otherwise settled genuinely and which answers the

requirements of the interest of justice will only add to the

burden of criminal courts in India, which is otherwise over

burdened.

6. The petitioner has also produced the certificate of

marriage issued by the Marriage Officer,

Thiruvananthapuram, stating that the petitioner married the

defacto complainant on 21.01.2026, in support of his

contention that he had already married the victim and that

now they are leading a happy married life. In the affidavit

filed by the victim, she expressed her desire to terminate the

2026:KER:15759

prosecution proceedings against the petitioner and also that

for preserving the peaceful and happy family life, termination

of the proceedings is highly necessary.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions