Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
AJITH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 2062 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR, SMT.RADHIKA S.ANIL, SHRI.NIJAZ JALEEL
For the Respondents: SHRI.MOHANAN M.K.
Binding agreements in family disputes can lead to quashing of criminal proceedings.
Headnote:The petitioners, accused of offences under Sections 498A, 323 IPC, and the Dowry Prohibition Act, sought to quash proceedings based on a settlement asserted through an affidavit from the defacto complainant. However, it was contested that the complainant later expressed unwillingness to settle, yet the Court found that the signature on an agreement to quash was binding following a dissolution of marriage. Ultimately, the Court quashed all proceedings against the petitioners due to the binding agreement. The Court ordered: 'In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC. No.1876/2022... is quashed.'
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused petitioner's request to quash proceedings based on alleged settlement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's determination of binding nature of settlement agreement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. final order to quash all proceedings. (Para 7) |
O R D E R Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026 The accused persons 1 and 2 in CC. No.1876/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, arising out of Crime No.647/2022 of Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta, filed this petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 .
2. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused being the husband of the defacrto complainant and the 2nd accused being his mother, subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally on the ground of dowry and voluntarily caused hurt to her.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the dispute between the parties have been settled and therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners.
4. Along with the Crl.M.C, the petitioners have produced the affidavit sworn to by the defacto complainant as Annexure-C, which shows that the matter has been settled between the parties and also that the defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. However, when the signed statement of the defacto complainant was recorded through the SHO, she stated that she is not willing to settle the dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Annexure- D agreement signed between the parties and produced before the Family Court, Adoor, from which it is revealed that the entire dispute between the parties were settled amicably and they have also decided to quash the criminal case pending against the petitioners. On the basis of Annexure-D agreement the marriage between the parties was dissolved as per Annexure-F judgment.
6. In the above circumstances, now the defacto complainant cannot withdraw from Annexure-D agreement and as such this Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed.
7. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC. No.1876/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, arising out of Crime No.647/2022 of Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta, is quashed.
Sd/-
