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) 5597

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SENTHIL KUMAR T – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 11678 OF 2025|CC NO.168 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.MOHAMMED SIYAD M.F.
For the Respondents: SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

The quashment of criminal proceedings is permitted when the parties reach an amicable settlement, especially for non-heinous offences.

Headnote:This Court examined the petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. concerning Crime No.714/2023, where the petitioner allegedly committed offences under IPC Sections 354, 354A(1)(i), 323, 294(b), 447, and 427. The prosecution alleged the petitioner trespassed, causing hurt and insult to the defacto complainant. However, the parties settled amicably, and the defacto complainant supported the quashment of proceedings. The Court found the offences not heinous and quashed the case for maintaining harmony.

Table of Content
1. petitioner faces ipc offences with amicable settlement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. defacto complainant endorses non-continuation of prosecution. (Para 4 , 5)
3. quashment of proceedings to maintain harmony acknowledged. (Para 6 , 7)

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.714/2023 of Ernakulam Central police station, which is pending as CC. No.168/2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 354, 354A(1)(i), 323, 294(b), 447, 427 of IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that on 02.04.2024 at about 4.00 p.m., the accused trespassed into the courtyard of the quarters of the defacto complainant, voluntarily caused hurt to her, insulted her modesty, abused her using filthy words and caused damage to the defacto complainant 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 3 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 petitioner.

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.

7. In the result, This Crl. M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC. No.168/2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, arising from Crime No.714/2023 of Ernakulam Central 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