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) 5587

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
VINODH S. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10097 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ARUN CHAND, SHRI.VINAYAK G MENON, SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER, SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P., SMT.MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON, SMT.ARCHANA P.P., SMT.SHEHROON PATEL A.K., SHRI.ALVIN JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SMT.NEETHU S.

The court quashed criminal proceedings based on amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the non-heinous nature of the offenses.

Headnote:This case involves a petition filed for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. The petitioner is accused of trespass and causing hurt, but the dispute was amicably settled with the victim, who endorsed the quashment request. The court ruled that the offenses are private in nature, and the case was quashed to maintain harmony among the parties. Final verdict: This Crl. M.C is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner are quashed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.

Table of Content
1. understanding the nature of crimes involved and the amicable resolution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. prosecutor's acknowledgment of the amicable settlement. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's rationale for quashing proceedings. (Para 6)

ORDER

Dated this the 29th day of January, 2026 This is a petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. , by the accused in Crime No. 1333 of 2022 of Neyyattinkara police station, which is pending as C.C. No. 945 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 451 , 341 and 323 of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that on 03.10.2022 at about 3.00 p.m., the accused trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained her, voluntarily caused hurt to her and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the petitioner, the dispute has been amicably settled with the defacto complainant/victim/respondent No. 3 and that she agreed to drop all further proceedings relating to the above dispute. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for quashing all further proceedings against him.

4. The defacto complainant/victim filed affidavit endorsing the averments in the Criminal MC. According to her, the case has been amicably settled and that she does not intend to proceed with the case and also that further proceedings in the case can be quashed. She has no further grievance against the petitioner.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, after getting instruction from the investigating officer also submitted that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that the victim is not interested in continuing the prosecution against the petitioners.

6. Considering the fact that the offences involved in this case are not heinous and very serious, but purely of private in nature and now the dispute has been settled between the parties, quashment of the same is necessary for maintaining harmonious relationship between the parties and also to prevent abuse of process of the court.

In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 945 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara arising from Crime No. 1333 of 2022 of Neyyattinkara police station, is quashed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.

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