[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sasikala vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:28673
CRL.MC NO. 2542 OF 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 2542 OF 2026
CRIME NO.1738/2021 OF Varkala Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.994 OF 2022 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VARKALA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5:
1 SASIKALA,
AGED 60 YEARS
D/O.BABU, RESIDING AT KALLUVILA VEEDU, THANNIMOODU,
CHERUNNIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-,
PIN - 695142
2 SHERLY JERONE,
AGED 60 YEARS
D/O.JERONE, RESIDING AT PANAVILAKOM VEEDU,
MUDIYAKODU, CHERUNNIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-, PIN - 695142
3 MANOJ.M.RAMAN,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.MADHAVAN PILLA,RESIDING AT SREEVINAYAKOM VEEDU,
DALAVAPURAM, CHERUNNIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-, PIN - 695142
4 THANZIL,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, RESIDING AT A.S.MANZIL,
PALACHIRA, CHERUNNIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-, PIN - 695142
2026:KER:28673
CRL.MC NO. 2542 OF 2026
2
5 KUMARI,
AGED 60 YEARS
D/O.THANKAMMA, RESIDING AT THOPPIL VEEDU,
AKATHUMURI, VENNICODE, VENNICODE.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695318
BY ADV SRI.AKHIL SUSEENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 AMALRAJ,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.RAJAN, RESIDING AT MAKAYIRAM, CHERUNNIYOOR.P.O,
VARKALA, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695142
BY ADV SHRI.UNNIKRISHNAN R.
SR.PP. SMT. SEEETHA S.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:28673
CRL.MC NO. 2542 OF 2026
3
ORDER
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2026
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 5 in
C.C.No.994/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate-I, Varkala (Trial Court), which has
originated from Crime No.1738/2021 registered by the
Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram alleging the
commission of the offences punishable under Sections
341, 294(b), and 323 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.
2026:KER:28673
CRL.MC NO. 2542 OF 2026
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.
2026:KER:28673
CRL.MC NO. 2542 OF 2026
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
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.
2026:KER:28673
CRL.MC NO. 2542 OF 2026
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 A FIR and final report and all further
proceedings in C.C. No. 994/2022 of the Trial Court as
against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm31/3/2026
2026:KER:28673
CRL.MC NO. 2542 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 2542 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR,FIS AND FINAL
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1738/2021 OF VARKALA
POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL
FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
341,294(B), 323 AND 34 IPC PENDING AT CC
NO.994/2022 BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-1,
VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
Annexure B THE AFFIDAVIT OF COMPROMISE OF RESPONDENT
NO. 2 DATED 22/08/2025
