SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
MUHAMMED JASEEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 258 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.856/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR
For the Respondents: SMT.DEVIKA K.R.

Prosecution can be quashed upon amicable settlement between parties to prevent abuse of court processes.

Headnote:The petitioners, accused in CC No.232 of 2025, sought to quash ongoing proceedings due to an amicable settlement with the de facto complainant, as stated in her affidavit to the court. The Public Prosecutor confirmed the complainant's lack of interest in continuing the prosecution. The court found that the dispute is private, thus permitting the termination of prosecution to avoid court's abuse and foster harmony among parties. The petition was allowed, quashing the proceedings.

Table of Content
1. accuseds' background and case history. (Para 1)
2. affidavit and statements indicate amicable resolution. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
3. court's rationale for quashing proceedings. (Para 3 , 6)

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC No.232 of 2025 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perinthalmanna, which arose out of Crime No.856/2024 of the Pandikad Police Station, Malappuram. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 85, 126(2), 115(2) and 316(2) r/w Section 3 (5) BNS and Section 3 1(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 .

2. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that the issue involved in this case has been amicably settled with the de facto complainant, and hence the proceedings against them are to be quashed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. The de facto complainant has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that all the issues between her and the petitioners have been amicably settled, and hence there is no need to continue the prosecution against the petitioners.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions from the Investigating Officer, submitted that the de facto complainant had given a statement to the Investigating Officer also to the effect that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners, and that she is not at all interested in continuing the prosecution against the petitioners.

6. It appears that the dispute involved is purely of private nature, and no purpose would be fulfilled by the continuance of the prosecution in this case, and hence it is highly necessary to terminate the prosecution proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. Such a course is also required to maintain the harmonious relationship between the parties. Therefore, the request in the present petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, has to be allowed.

In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC No.232 of 2025 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perinthalmanna, which arose out of Crime No.856/2024 of the Pandikad Police Station, Malappuram, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top