[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rajan Robert @ Ajith vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:259
CRL.MC NO. 11342 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 11342 OF 2025
CRIME NO.469/2019 OF Valiyathura Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1377 OF 2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS IV (MOBILE),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:
1 RAJAN ROBERT @ AJITH,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O ROBERT,RESIDING TC:34/1338, NEAR BEACH LENA ROAD,
VALIYATHOPE VALIYATHURA, PETTA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695008
2 NIKHIL KENY @ KEVIN ,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O KENY NICHOLAS,RESIDING TC:78/1494, NEAR BEACH,
JUSA ROAD, KOCHUTHOPE VALIYATHURA, PETTA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695008
3 FRANK PHILIP @ UNNI ,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O PHILIP K.V , RESIDING AT TC :34/437 ANGEL HOUSE
NEAR KANNANTHURA COMMUNITY HALL, SANGHUMUGHAM,
KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, PIN -
695008
2026:KER:259
CRL.MC NO. 11342 OF 2025
2
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MOHAMMED MUSHTHAQ S.
SHRI.ANANTHAKRISHNAN A.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 JOHN TERRAIN WILLIAM,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O WILLIAM PETER RESIDING AT TC: 34/919 STAR HOUSE,
VALIYATHOPE, NEAR DOMESTIC AIRPORT VALIYATHURA, PETTA
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695008
BY ADV SHRI.NAHAS H.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:259
CRL.MC NO. 11342 OF 2025
3
ORDER
Dated this the 06th day of January, 2026
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in
C.C.No.1377/2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate-IV (Mobile), Thiruvananthapuram
(Trial Court), which has originated from Crime
No.469/2019 registered by the Valiyathura Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram alleging the commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341 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 A3
affidavit, affirming the settlement.
2026:KER:259
CRL.MC NO. 11342 OF 2025
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
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
2026:KER:259
CRL.MC NO. 11342 OF 2025
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.
Furthermore, the settlement would promote harmony
2026:KER:259
CRL.MC NO. 11342 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 A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and all further
proceedings in C.C. No.1377/2019 of the Trial Court as
against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm06/01/2026
2026:KER:259
CRL.MC NO. 11342 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 11342 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS
DATED 15-03-2019 IN CRIME NO. 469/2019 OF
THE VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
30.03.2019 IN CC. NO.1377/2019 ON THE
FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS- IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A3 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.03.2025
SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
