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) 5586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
... – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 6342 OF 2021 | CRIME NO.727/2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV SHRI.AMEER SALIM
For the Respondents: SMT.C. SEENA, PP, SRI.P. SANJAY, SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON, SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR, SRI.PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH), SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM, SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN, SHRI.PRASOON SUNNY, SHRI.RAHUL RAJ P.

Quashing of proceedings in cases where parties have settled and allegations are deemed consensual.

Headnote:The petitioner presented a Crl.M.C under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, for quashing proceedings in Crime No.727 of 2021 citing settled matters between parties, despite claimant's allegations under Sections 342 and 376(2)(n) of IPC. Findings concluded that the relationship was consensual and proceedings served no purpose. Court finds no necessity to continue proceedings, quashing them accordingly.

Table of Content
1. accused petitions for quashing proceedings based on settlement. (Para 1 , 2)
2. affidavit filed affirming settlement between parties. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court observes consensual nature of relationship. (Para 6)
4. proceedings quashed based on the findings. (Para 7)

ORDER

Dated this the 29th day of January, 2026 The petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.727 of 2021 of Viyyur Police Station, filed this Crl.M.C under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 342 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The prosecution case is that, on 15.07.2019 and

04.09.2021, at Woodlands hotel, as well as in the rented house of the de facto complainant, the accused sexually abused the de facto complainant, after promising to marry her.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, now the entire dispute between the parties has been settled and therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The de facto complainant/3rd respondent also affidavit stating that the entire dispute between them is settled and also that, she does not want to proceed against the petitioner.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

However, upon instructions, she submitted that the de facto complainant had sent an e-mail communication to the SHO, acknowledging the factum of settlement, as stated in the affidavit filed before this Court.

6. On a perusal of the First Information Statement given by the de facto complainant, it can be seen that, the petitioner and the de facto complainant had sexual relationship with each other on two different occasions. One on 15.07.2019 and the other on 04.09.2021. The first incident was in a hotel, while the second one was on her own rented building, after a gap of two years. Therefore, prima facie, the relationship between them was a consensual one. It is fortified by the fact that, now the de facto complainant has filed an affidavit stating that she does not want to proceed against the petitioner.

7. In the above circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner and as such, this Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed.

In the result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed.

All further proceedings in Crime No.727 of 2021 of Viyyur Police Station, against the petitioner is 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