[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Sabik[*Corrected As Per Order ... vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:4905
CRL.MC NO. 11653 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 1ST MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 11653 OF 2025
CRIME NO.819/2017 OF Anchuthengu Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.1731 OF 2018 OF
ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:
1 MUHAMMED SABIK[*;CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED
16.1.2026 IN CRL MA 1/2026]
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.SALAHUDEEN, RESIDING AT SAHANA MANZIL, THAZHE
VETTOOR, VETTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695312 * THE NAME OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER STAND CORRECTED AND SUBSTITUTED AS
'MUHAMMED SABIK' INSTEAD OF 'MUHAMMED SABITH AS PER
ORDER DATED 16.01.2026 IN CRL. M.A NO.1/2026
2 AKTHAR,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O.SAMAD, RESIDING AT MULLILTHODI VEEDU, ARIVALAM,
VETTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
695006
3 HAMSA,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O.ALIF, RESIDING AT KRISHNAVILAKOM VEEDU,
ARIVALAM, VETTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695006
BY ADV SRI.AKHIL SUSEENDRAN
2026:KER:4905
CRL.MC NO. 11653 OF 2025
2
RESPONDENTS/STATE & CW1:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 SURYADEV,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.SARATH CHANDRABOSE, RESIDING AT SADHALEKSHMI
VEEDU, UDAIVILAKAM, KAYIKKARA, ANCHUTHENGU VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695307
SR.PP. SMT. SEETHA S.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:4905
CRL.MC NO. 11653 OF 2025
3
ORDER
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2026
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in
S.C.No.1731/2018 on the file of the Assistant Sessions
Court, Attingal (Trial Court), which has originated from
Crime No.819/2017 registered by the Anchuthengu Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the commission of
the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324
and 308 r/w 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 registration of the crime has
been amicably settled between the petitioners and the
second respondent, who has executed Annexure B
affidavit, affirming the settlement.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
2026:KER:4905
CRL.MC NO. 11653 OF 2025
petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned
Counsel for the second 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 second
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 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], State of Madhya
2026:KER:4905
CRL.MC NO. 11653 OF 2025
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
2026:KER:4905
CRL.MC NO. 11653 OF 2025
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 A final report, and all further proceedings in S.C.
No.1731/2018 of the Trial Court as against the petitioners,
are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm21/01/2026
2026:KER:4905
CRL.MC NO. 11653 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 11653 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
819/2017 OF ACHUTHENGU POLICE STATION
REGISTERED U/S.294(B), 323, 324, 308
R/W.34 IPC, PENDING AS SC NO.1731/2018
BEFORE THE FILES OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS
COURT, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure B THE AFFIDAVIT OF COMPROMISE OF RESPONDENT
NO. 2.
