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) 6260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SHAHUL HAMEED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 9329 OF 2025|CRIME NO.32/2025|SC NO.1111 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
For the Respondents: SR.PP-SRI.BREEZ M.S., SHRI.JAMEEL AHAMMED M.S.

Evidence of settlement between parties and lack of objection support quashing criminal proceedings.

Headnote:The petitioner, the 1st accused in S.C.No.1111 of 2025, sought to quash proceedings under Sections 376D, 376(2)(n), 506, and 377 of the IPC along with various sections of the SC/ST (POA) Act. It was established that the de facto complainant settled the dispute and stated no incident of rape occurred. The sessions court acquitted the co-accused, affirming there was no evidence to proceed against the petitioner, thus allowing the Crl.M.C under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. The Court decided that continuing proceedings would be meaningless given the circumstances.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks to quash criminal proceedings due to settlement. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court finds evidence insufficient for prosecution based on testimonies. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

ORDER

Dated this the 30th day of January, 2026 The petitioner, who is the 1st accused in S.C.No.1111 of

2025 of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA), Act Cases, Manjeri, filed this Crl.M.C under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the co-accused are under Sections 376D , 376(2)(n), 506 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and various Sections of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, now the entire dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant has been settled. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

3. The petition was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The de facto complainant/3rd respondent has affidavit stating that the entire dispute between herself and the petitioner has been settled and that, she has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. From Annexure A2 judgment, it can be seen that, when the de facto complainant was examined as PW2, she deposed that there was no incident in which she was raped. She also stated that she does not know the 2nd accused, who was present in the dock. PW3, her husband also deposed that he has no direct knowledge about the incident. It was in the light of the above evidence of PWs 2 and 3, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the 2nd accused.

5. In the light of the above evidence of PWs 2 and 3, there is no meaning in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner also. Moreover, now the entire dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant has been settled and the de facto complainant/3rd respondent stated that she does not want to proceed against the petitioner and as such, the Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed.

In the result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.1111 of 2025 of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA), Act Cases, Manjeri, as against the petitioner, is quashed.

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