Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SHAHUL HAMEED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 8086 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN, SRI.G.SUDHEER
For the Respondents: SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED, SMT.DEEPA SASIDHARAN
Settlement between parties can lead to quashing of proceedings under specific legal provisions if confirmed by the court.
Headnote:This case involves a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, by the accused seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.153 of 2024, which are related to allegations under Section 498A of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court notes that the parties have reached a mutual settlement, which is verified by the complainant's counsel. The court, therefore, decides to grant the petition based on amicable resolution of the dispute. The final ruling allows the Crl.M.C and quashes all proceedings against the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiating a crl.m.c to quash proceedings under specific legal sections. (Para 1) |
| 2. mutual settlement between parties through mediation leads to petition being granted. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. final ruling allows the quashing of proceedings based on settlement. (Para 4) |
ORDER
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2026 The accused persons 1 to 4 in C.C.No.153 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.5 of 2024 of Fort Police Station, filed this Crl.M.C under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, praying for quashing all further proceedings against them. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 4 98A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961.
2. During the pendency of this Crl.M.C, at the instance of both parties, the matter was referred for mediation to the Mediation Centre attached to this Court. As per the memorandum of settlement signed by all the parties, they have amicably settled the entire dispute between them and as per the terms of which, they decided to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.153 of 2024.
3. The learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant also submitted that the dispute has been settled and also that the amount mentioned in the memorandum of settlement has already been received by the 2nd respondent.
4. In the above circumstances, this Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed.
All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.153 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.5 of 2024 of Fort Police Station, is quashed.
Sd/-
