[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Fawaz.T.A vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 392 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:15531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 392 OF 2026
CRIME NO.1440/2025 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION, Ernakulam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 FAWAZ.T.A.
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL KAREEM,THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MILLUPADY,
U.C.COLLEGE,UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE.P.O.,ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 683102
2 AMEER SUHAIL,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SHANU K.K, KARIPPAYI CHENNAMPILLY HOUSE,
BINANIPURAM, ALUVA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
683502
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JERRY PETER
SRI.VINOD S. PILLAI
SMT.NAYANA VARGHESE
SMT.RIA VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & VICTIM:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 BAZIL BIN ABDUL AZEEZ,
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, KAKKANATTIL HOUSE, NEAR CANAL JN,
VAZHAKULAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683105
CRL.MC NO. 392 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:15531
3 HAFEEZ.V.S.
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. SAKEER HUSSAIN, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,
PUTHUVASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY, P.O ,ALUVA ,ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683585
4 HARILAL.P.
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. PREMLAL V, LAL BHAVAN, KANNANCODE, VENJARAMOODU
P.O, NELLANAD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695607
BY ADV
SMT.SEETHA S., SR.PP
SHRI.MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 392 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:15531
ORDER
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2026
The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime
No.1440/2025, registered by the Aluva East Police
Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 115(2) and
118(2) read with Section 3(5) 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 to 4, who have executed Annexures A3, A4
and A5 affidavits, affirming the settlement.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioners, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, and
the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.
CRL.MC NO. 392 OF 2026
2026:KER:15531
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 to 4 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 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
CRL.MC NO. 392 OF 2026
2026:KER:15531
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
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,
CRL.MC NO. 392 OF 2026
2026:KER:15531
Annexure A1 First Information Report and all further
proceedings in Crime No. 1440/2025 of the Aluva East
Police Station, as against the petitioners, are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
acs/dkr
CRL.MC NO. 392 OF 2026
2026:KER:15531
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 392 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.1440/2025 OF ALUVA EAST
POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT DATED
02.07.2025
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.1440/2025 OF ALUVA
EAST POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
DATED 02.07.2025
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED
10.01.2026
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2026
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2026
