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) 5594

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
DELIN WILLIAM FERNANDEZ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 11539 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.1528/2023 | C.C. No.302 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.RAVIVARMA V., SMT.ANJALI NARAYANAN, SRI.KISHOR B.
For the Respondents: SMT. LAYA SIMON

The court can quash proceedings in non-heinous matrimonial disputes when issues are amicably settled between the parties.

Headnote:This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. concerning a pending case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for alleged offences under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC, which stem from a matrimonial dispute involving cruelty and physical harm. The petitioners sought quashment of proceedings due to an amicable resolution with the defacto complainant, who confirmed her intention to withdraw the case. The court found the nature of the allegations non-heinous and thus quashed all proceedings to sustain rapport among the parties involved.

Result: This Crl.M.C is allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of charges and case background. (Para 1 , 2)
2. settlement and withdrawal of complaint. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's decision to quash 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 accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 1528 of 2023 of Museum Police Station, which is pending as C.C. No. 302 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused being the husband of the defacto complainant and the other accused being his relatives subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally on the ground of dowry, voluntarily caused hurt to her and thereby they are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the petitioners, the dispute has been settled with the defacto complainant/victim/respondent No. 2 and she agreed to drop all further proceedings relating to the above dispute. Therefore, the petitioners prayed for quashing all further proceedings against them.

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 petitioners.

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

6. Considering the fact that the offence involved in this case is not heinous and very serious, but purely a matrimonial and private dispute, which has been amicably settled between the parties, quashment of further proceedings is necessary for maintaining harmonious relationship between the parties.

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 302 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No. 1528 of 2023 of Museum Police Station, stands 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