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) 6101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SIRAJ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1745 OF 2023|CRIME NO.223/2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
For the Respondents: O.M.SHALINA

The court may quash proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. if the prosecution delay is unexplained and the dispute is settled.

Headnote:The petitioner, accused in Crime No.223/2017, filed a Crl.M.C under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against him for offences under IPC Sections 450, 376, and 506. The court found there was no explanation for the significant delay in the FIR registration, and that the defacto complainant had settled the dispute, indicating no useful purpose in continuing the proceedings. The court concluded that the Crl.M.C should be allowed and all proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. accused filed for quashing of proceedings based on delayed fir. (Para 1 , 2)
2. dispute between parties settled. (Para 3)
3. court observes no purpose in continued proceedings. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER

Dated this the 31st day of January, 2026 The petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.223/2017 of Nilambur police station, now pending as L.P.No.14/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 450 , 376, 506 of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that on one day between 01.01.2007 and

31.12.2009, at about 3.00 p.m., the accused trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant and committed rape upon her after threatening that he is in possession of her naked photographs and that it will be disclose to the outside world.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that now the entire dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant were settled and therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Though as per the prosecution case, the alleged incident was on one day between 01.01.2007 and 31.12.2009, the FIR was registered only on

14.05.2017, about 8 to 10 years after the alleged incident. Absolutely no explanation is offered for the above delay in launching the FIR. As per the FI Statement, several persons allegedly sexually abused the defacto complainant and some of them allegedly abused her repeatedly.

5. On a perusal of the FI Statement in toto, it appears that the relationship between the petitioner and defacto complainant was a consensual one. Moreover, now the entire dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant were settled and the defacto complainant expressed her desire not to proceed against the petitioner. Therefore, 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, this Crl. M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.223/2017 of Nilambur police station, now pending as L.P.No.14/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, stands quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

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