[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ajmal K vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 5 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:5229
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. 5 OF 2026
CRIME NO.472/2017 OF Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.866 OF 2019 OF
ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT, KANNUR
PETITIONER/S:
1 AJMAL K,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O JAMEELA, KANDANDEVIDA HOUSE, PULLOOPPI,
KANNADIPARAMBA, CHELERI P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670604
2 ARSHAD K.K,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED, THOLANTAVIDA HOUSE, PULLOOPPI,
KANNADIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670604
3 NISHAD U,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. IBRAHIM, PATTEPARAMBIL PC HOUSE, KANNADIPARAMBA,
KANNUR., PIN - 670604
4 ABDULLA P.P,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED, NOORAJ MANZIL, KANNADI PARAMBA, KANNUR,
PIN - 670604
5 AADIL K.P,
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, KARIPPAYIL HOUSE, PULLOOPPI,
KANNADIPARAMBA, KANNUR., PIN - 670604
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.SUBHASH
SMT.JENI JOHN
CRL.MC NO. 5 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:5229
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AT ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 PRANAV K
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O PRASHANTHAN, KOYILERIYAN HOUSE, PALLIPRAM P.O,
VARAM, MUNDAYAD, KANNUR., PIN - 670594
3 JAMNESH A,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O PRAKASHAN, S.B.NIVAS, PALLIPRAM, P.O VARAM,
MUNDYAD, KANNUR, PIN - 670594
4 JISHNU UNNI,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. PRADEEPAN K, POOKKAAL HOUSE, ATHAZHAKKUNNU, P.O,
KOTTALI, PUZHATHI, KANNUR., PIN - 670016
5 MONISH P.M,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O MOHANAN, KORJAN KOBOUND, KAKKAD P.O, KANNUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 670005
BY ADV SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SRI M P PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 5 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:5229
C.S.DIAS, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 5 OF 2026
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 and 6 in SC
No.866/2019 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court,
Kannur, which has originated from Crime No.472/2017,
registered by the Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur,
alleging the commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 and 427 read
with 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 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 2 to 5, who have executed Annexures A3 to
CRL.MC NO. 5 OF 2026
2026:KER:5229
A6 affidavits, affirming the settlement.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned
Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5.
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
respondents 2 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
CRL.MC NO. 5 OF 2026
2026:KER:5229
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. 5 OF 2026
2026:KER:5229
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-A1 FIR, A2 final report and all further
proceedings in SC No.866/2019 on the file of the Assistant
Sessions Court, Kannur, as against the petitioners are
hereby quashed.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/21.01.26
CRL.MC NO. 5 OF 2026
2026:KER:5229
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 5 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 472 OF 2017
OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION DATED
22.04.2017
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
30.10.2018 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KANNUR
Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.11.2025 SWORN TO BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES
Annexure A4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.11.2025 SWORN TO BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES
Annexure A5 AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.11.2025 SWORN TO BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES
Annexure A6 AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.11.2025 SWORN TO BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.5 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES
