[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Jayakumar vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
Crl. M.C No. 1278 of 2026
2026:KER:17643
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1278 OF 2026
CRIME NO.1418/2023 OF Pathanamthitta Police Station,
Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.656 OF 2024 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/S:
1 JAYAKUMAR
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O C V SOMAN, VILAYIL HOUSE, MAMOOD P.O,
KUDAMUKKUMURIYIL, VALLIKKODE VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA,, PIN - 689648
2 BINUVALIYAPARAMBIL
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O GEORGE VARGHESE, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PANNIKKUZHIMURIYIL, OONNUKAL P.O, CHENNEERKKARA
VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA,, PIN - 689503
3 ARUNKUMAR P.
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN, VILAYIL HOUSE,
KUDAMUKKUMURIYIL, OMALLOR VILLAGE &P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA,, PIN - 689647
4 RAGHU KUMAR
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O CHIDAMBARAMPILLA, VV HOUSE, PRAMADAM,
MALLASSERI P.O, PRAMADAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA,,
PIN - 689646
5 AJILKUMAR
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O SASIDHARANACHARI, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PRAKKANAMMURIYIL, CHENNEERKKARA
Crl. M.C No. 1278 of 2026
2
2026:KER:17643
VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689503
BY ADV SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 SIBI C SAM
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O SAMUEL, CHERIYATH HOUSE, VAYYATTUPUZHA,
CHITTAR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA,, PIN - 689663
BY ADV SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA)
OTHER PRESENT:
PP.SRI.SANAL P. RAJ
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C No. 1278 of 2026
3
2026:KER:17643
C.S.DIAS, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl. M.C No. 1278 of 2026
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in
C.C.No.656 / 2024 on the file of the Court of Judicial
Magistrate of First Class - I, Pathanamthitta, ('Trial
Court', for short), which has originated from Crime No.
1418/2023 registered by the Pathanamthitta Police
Station, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 341, and 506 (i)
r/w 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
2026:KER:17643
2nd respondent, who has executed Annexure A2 affidavit,
affirming the settlement.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
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
respondent has no subsisting grievance and does not
wish to pursue the prosecution, and has 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
2026:KER:17643
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 settlement would promote harmony
between the parties and restore peace. Hence, this Court
2026:KER:17643
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 FIR Final Report in Crime No. 1418/2023
registered by the Pathanamthitta Police Station and all
further proceedings in C.C No. 656 / 2024 of the Trial
Court, as against the petitioners, are here by quashed.
Sd/-
Srs/26.02.2026 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
2026:KER:17643
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1278 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.
NO. 656/2024 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I AT
PATHANAMTHITTA
Annexure A2 AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT DATED 26/12/2025
