[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Dr. Vinu Joy vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 80 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:3910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 80 OF 2026
CRIME NO.370/2025 OF Kuravilangadu Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.999 OF 2025 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PALA
PETITIONER/S:
1 DR. VINU JOY
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O JOY M.D, MENACHERI HOUSE, VENNOOR BHAGAM,
ANNAMANADA (P.O), CHALAKKUDI, ALATHOOR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680741
2 PAUL
AGED 70 YEARS
KUTTIKKADAN HOUSE, PERAMBRA BHAGAM, PERAMBRA (P.O),
CHALAKKUDI, KODAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN -
680683
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.VARGHESE
SHRI.JERRY MATHEW
SMT.DEVIKA K.R.
SHRI.RAMEEZ M. AZEEZ
SMT.SAWPARNIKA RAJU
SHRI.SIYAD UMMER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY, PIN - 682031
2 SURAJ A R
CRL.MC NO. 80 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:3910
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O RAJESH A R, ANASSERIL HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM DESOM,
KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686634
BY ADV SRI.R.ROHITH
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT SREEJA V
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 80 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:3910
C.S.DIAS, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 80 OF 2026
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in CC
No.999/2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Pala, which has originated from Crime
No.370/2025 registered by the Kuravilangadu Police
Station, Kottayam, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 417 and 420 read with Section
34 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 filing of the complaint has been
amicably settled between the petitioners and the 2nd
respondent, who has executed Annexure-4 affidavit,
CRL.MC NO. 80 OF 2026
2026:KER:3910
affirming the settlement.
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 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
CRL.MC NO. 80 OF 2026
2026:KER:3910
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
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
CRL.MC NO. 80 OF 2026
2026:KER:3910
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,
Annexures 1 FIR, 3 final report and all further proceedings
in CC No.999/2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Pala, as against the petitioner, are
hereby quashed.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/16.01.26
CRL.MC NO. 80 OF 2026
2026:KER:3910
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 80 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.370/2025 OF KURAVILANGAD POLICE STATION,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT DATED 14.03.2025
Annexure 2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME
NO.370/2025 OF KURAVILANGAD POLICE STATION,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT DATED 14.03.2025
Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC
NO.999/2025 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA
Annexure 4 AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT
DATED 18/11/2025
