[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Anoop vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 1165 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:26455
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 1165 OF 2026
CRIME NO.822/2015 OF Viyyur Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.831 OF 2016 OF
ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/S:
1 ANOOP,
AGED 51 YEARS
KANJINKKAD HOUSE,MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU KALLEPADI,KILLANOOR
VILLAGE,THRISSUR, PIN - 660581
2 DILEEP,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O T ARAVINDAN,SARANYA NO 20,RAIL NAGAR,OLAVAKODE
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678002
3 SINDHU THILAKAN,
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O THILAKAN,KAZHICHAMADOM
HOUSE,MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU,KILLANOOR VILLAGE,THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680581
4 DHANYA,
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O THILAKAN,KAZHICHAMADOM
HOUSE,MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU,KILLANOOR VILLAGE,THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680581
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SMT.DIPA V.
SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
CRL.MC NO. 1165 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:26455
SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SHRI.T.P.ARAVIND
SHRI.AZAD SUNIL
SHRI.MAHESWAR PADICKAL
SMT.AKSHARA S.
SMT.NIVEDITA RAJEEV
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 PRATHEESH,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O LATE BHASKARAN,PARAYANGATTIL HOUSE,KIZHAKKUMURI
VILLAGE,PERINGOTUKARA,THRISSUR, PIN - 680571
3 PRIYESH
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O LATE BHASKARAN, PARAYANGATTIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMURI
VILLAGE, PERINGOTUKARA, THRISSUR -680571. [IS IMPLEADED
AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2026 IN
CRL M.A 02/2026]
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN
SHRI.ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN
OTHER PRESENT:
PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1165 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:26455
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 1165 OF 2026
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in SC
No.831/2016 of the Assistant Sessions Court-II, Thrissur,
which has originated from Crime No.822/2015, registered
by the Viyyur Police Station, Thrissur, alleging the
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341,
323, 324, 308, 326 and 201 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 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 2nd and
the additional 3rd respondents, who have executed
CRL.MC NO. 1165 OF 2026
2026:KER:26455
Annexure-II affidavit and the affidavit dated 12.03.2026,
affirming the settlement.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned
Counsel for the 2nd and the additional 3rd respondents.
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 and the
additional 3rd respondents 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.
CRL.MC NO. 1165 OF 2026
2026:KER:26455
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 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
CRL.MC NO. 1165 OF 2026
2026:KER:26455
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
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-I Final Report and all further proceedings in SC
No.831/2016 of the Assistant Sessions Court-II, Thrissur,
as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc
CRL.MC NO. 1165 OF 2026
2026:KER:26455
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1165 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO 822/2015 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
Annexure II THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.01.2026 BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure III NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PARTY SOUGHT
TO BE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 3 IN
THE ABOVE CASE
