[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rakesh @ Kuttan vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 10066 OF 2025
1
2026:KER:1203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 18TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 10066 OF 2025
CRIME NO.89/2011 OF Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.A NO.194 OF 2020 OF DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER IN CC NO.163 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PATTAMBI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAKESH @ KUTTAN ,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. RAGHAVAN, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE,
NADUVATTOM P.O, PIN - 679571
BY ADV SHRI.JOSEPH THEKKEKURUVANAL
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 NOUSHADALI,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, KANNAMTHODI HOUSE ,
KAIPPURAM , PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679308
BY ADV SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS
SRI.M.P.PRASANTH -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 10066 OF 2025
2
2026:KER:1203
C.S.DIAS, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 10066 OF 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.89/2011 registered
by the Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad, for allegedly committing the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and
506(1) r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The Investigating Officer has registered Annexure-A1 FIR
and filed Annexure-A2 final report before the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi, and the case was numbered as
C.C. No.319/2011. Although, the petitioner was absconding, the trial
court convicted the petitioner as per Annexure-A3 judgment.
Subsequently, the case against the petitioner was split up and
re-numbered as C.C. No.163/2020, and he was sentenced as per
Annexure-A4 judgment. Aggrieved by Annexure-A4 judgment, the
petitioner has preferred Crl.Appeal No.194/2020, which is pending
consideration before the Court of Session, Palakkad. During the
pendency of the appeal, the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent have
arrived at a post-conviction settlement as reflected in Annexure-A7
affidavit. The petitioner asserts that, in view of the law laid down by
CRL.MC NO. 10066 OF 2025
2026:KER:1203
this Court in Soban v. State of Kerala [2021 (3) KHC 383], this
Court may set aside the conviction and sentence in Annexures-A3 and
A4 judgments, and quash all further proceedings in Annexure-A1 FIR,
Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings in the crime.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for
the 2nd respondent.
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 2nd respondent has no subsisting
grievance and does 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
CRL.MC NO. 10066 OF 2025
2026:KER:1203
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.
Furthermore, in Soban's case(supra), this Court has succinctly held
that there is no reason to restrict the inherent powers of this Court in a
post conviction stage. I fully concur with the principles laid down in the
aforecited decision.
In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. Accordingly, the conviction
and sentence in Annexures-A3 and A4 judgments are set aside and I
quash Annexure-A1 FIR, Annexure-A2 final report and all further
proceedings in Crime No. 89/2011 of the Pattambi Police Station,
Palakkad, as against the petitioner. In light of above, all further
proceedings in Crl.Appeal No. 194/2020 on the file of the Court of
Session, Palakkad, shall stand dropped.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SMF
CRL.MC NO. 10066 OF 2025
2026:KER:1203
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10066 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 89
OF 2011 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, DATED
18-02-2011
Annexure-A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGESHEET IN CRIME
NO. 89 OF 2011 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION,
DATED 27-02-2011
Annexure- A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO. 319 OF
2011 DATED 18-3-2020
Annexure- A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC 163/2020
DATED 23-09-2020
Annexure- A5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO. 164 OF
2020 DATED 31-05-2024
Annexure- A6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO. 165 OF
2020 DATED 31-05-2024
Annexure-A7 AFFIDAVIT DATED 04-08-2025 SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure-A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2025 IN
CRL.M.C. NO. 600 OF 2025
