Quashing proceedings against the accused when foundational claims are mutually exclusive and previously settled.

ORDER

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2026 The 2^nd accused in Crime No. 411 of 2025 of the Palarivattom police station filed this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS , praying for quashing all further proceedings against her. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the co-accused are under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 115(2), 118(1) and 3(5) of the BNS.

2. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused, being the husband of the defacto complainant, subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally on the ground of dowry and that on 05.06.2025 at about 8.00 p.m., the accused persons jointly assaulted the defacto complainant when she questioned about the illicit relationship between the accused persons.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire dispute between the 1^st accused and the defacto complainant were settled and accordingly as per order of this Court in Crl.M.C No. 10235 of 2025 dated 15.12.2025, this Court quashed the proceedings as against the 1^st accused. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/2^nd accused also.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant as well as by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. According to the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant, the dispute between the 1^st accused and the defacto complainant alone was settled and that the dispute as against the petitioner herein was not settled and therefore he prayed for dismissing the Crl.M.C.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki v. State of Maharashtra [2025 KHC OnLine 7619], would argue that the factual matrix forming the basis of all the offences involved in this case is inseparable and arises from a single transaction and since the case as against the 1^st accused was already quashed, the case against the 2^nd accused cannot be proceeded with.

7. In the above decision, in paragraph 13, the Apex Court held as follows:

“13. Once the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR with respect to the offences punishable under S.115(2), S.351(2), S.351(3), and S.352 of the BNS (S.326, S.506 and S.504 of the IPC ), on the basis of the voluntary affidavit of respondent No.2 - complainant, there was no justification whatsoever to sustain the same FIR for the offence punishable under S.310(2) of the BNS (S.395 of the ). The factual matrix forming the basis of all the offences is inseparable and arises from a single transaction. The compromise that was accepted as genuine and sufficient to quash the other offences equally dilutes the foundation of the charge of dacoity, which rests on the same set of allegations and circumstances.”

8. In the instant case, in the introductory portion of the FI statement it is alleged that on 05.06.2025 at about 8.00 p.m., when she went to the office room of the 1^st accused, she saw the accused persons in a comprising position and when she questioned the above conduct of the 1^st accused, he kicked her on her abdomen and on the back side of her body and the 2^nd accused caught hold on her hair and beat her using her footwear. Though in the introductory portion of the FI statement such an allegation is raised, in the body portion of the FI statement there is only a general allegation that both the accused persons together assaulted her.

9. In Annexure A3 affidavit filed by the defacto complainant in Crl.M.C No. 10235 of 2025, it is stated that :

“ Petitioner/Accused No.1 is not involved in the incident and his name happened to be included due to mistake of identity and mi