[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sharookh Hameed vs State Of Kerala on 27 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 936 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:17735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 936 OF 2026
CRIME NO.51/2026 OF Kaduthuruthi Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONER/S:
1 SHAROOKH HAMEED,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O HAMEED A.M, ARAKKAPARAMBIL,
PAROLIKKAL,ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686562
2 AMEEN NAZAR,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O A.M NAZAR, ULLAMPALLIL, PEROOR ROAD, ETTUMANOOR,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631
3 BONEY JOHN,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O JOHN, CHUNDAKKATTIL, SREEKANDAMANGALAM P.O,
ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686562
4 TONY JOHN,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O JOHN, THAIPPARAMBIL,ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686562
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOMY K. JOSE
SMT.RIYA A.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
CRL.MC NO. 936 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:17735
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KADUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686604
3 TONY BABY,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O C.T. BABY, AIKKARAPARAMBIL, MUZHIKULANGARA P.O,
NEENDOOR,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686601
4 SHAJIMON GEORGE,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O ABRAHAM GEORGE, VALIYAVELICHATHIL HOUSE, MEMURY
P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686617
5 RATHEESH B NAIR
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O P.S BALACHANDRAN NAIR, PUTHUPPILLIL, KOODAPPULAM
P.O., RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM-686617 [IMPLEADED AS
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO:5 AS PER ORDER DATED
24.02.2026 IN CRL MA 1/2026]
BY ADV SHRI.SALMAN FARIS
OTHER PRESENT:
PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 936 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:17735
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 936 OF 2026
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in Crime
No.51/2026, registered by the Kadathuruthi Police Station,
Kottayam, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 296(b), 351(2) and 324(4) 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 Surksha Sanhita, 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 3 to 5, who have executed Annexures A2 to
A4 affidavits, affirming the settlement.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
CRL.MC NO. 936 OF 2026
2026:KER:17735
petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned
Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5.
4. The learned counsel on either side submit that, with
the intervention of relatives and well-wishers, the parties
have resolved their disputes amicably. The respondents 3
to 5 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.
CRL.MC NO. 936 OF 2026
2026:KER:17735
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.
CRL.MC NO. 936 OF 2026
2026:KER:17735
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-A1 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime
No.51/2026, registered by the Kadathuruthi Police Station,
Kottayam, as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc
CRL.MC NO. 936 OF 2026
2026:KER:17735
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 936 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS IN
CRIME NO. 51/2026 OF KADUTHURUTHI POLICE
STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPIES OF THE AFFIDAVIT ENDORSED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ENDORSED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 12-02-2026
ENDORSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
