Kerala High Court
Aji Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:22451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7137 OF 2025
CRIME NO.481/2024 OF Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.229 OF 2021 OF
ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL
PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 TO 12:
1 AJI KUMAR,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. UTHAMAN NAIR, ASR MANDIRAM,
AYILAM DESAM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
2 SREERAG,
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. RAJENDRAN, KARANDAKATHU VEEDU,
NEAR AMUNTHURUTHU TEMPLE, CHEMPOORU DESAM,
MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
3 BINEESH,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. BABU, BABU NIVAS, KIZHAKKE AYILAM,
AYILAM DESAM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
4 VISAKH,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. VIJAYAN NAIR, KARTHIKA VEEDU,
CHEMPOORU DESAM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
5 VISHNU CHANDRAN,
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. CHANDRAN, VISHNU VILASOM VEEDU,
VEROORKONAM, CHEMPOORU DESAM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
6 BIJITH
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. BABU, BABU NIVAS, KIZHAKKE AYILAM,
AYILAM DESAM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
CRL.MC NO.7137 of 2025 2
2026:KER:22451
7 JITHIN
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. DILEEP KUMAR, LEKSHMI NIVAS,
ATHIRTHIMUKKU, POIKAMUKKU DESAM,
MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
8 JISHNU,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, CHITHRALAYAM VEEDU,
NEAR AMUNTHIRATHU TEMPLE, MUDAKKAL DESAM,
MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
9 AMAL
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. BALAN, KOLACHIRA VEEDU, KIZHAKKE AYILAM,
AYILAM DESAM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
0 ANU SANAL
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. SANAL KUMAR, ANU SADANAM, KIZHAKKE AYILAM,
AYILAM DESAM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 695103
11 SUNIL KUMAR,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. VISWAMBHARAN PILLAI, PUTHEN VEEDU,
VATTAVILA, AYILAM, AYILAM DESAM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
12 ANIL KUMAR
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. SIVANATHAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
POIKAMUKKU DESAM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH
SRI. HARIKIRAN M.
SHRI.ARAVIND R. NAIR
SMT.AMRITA SAFAL M.
SMT.PARVATHI
SHRI.YOOSUF SAFWAN T. AJMAL
SMT.SREELAKSHMI B.T.
CRL.MC NO.7137 of 2025 3
2026:KER:22451
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682031
2 KANNAN
S/O BABU, PALLIDUVILA VEEDU,
MYVALLIELA, AYILAM, MUDAKKAL, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103
3 SAJEEV
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SURENDRAN, SOUMYA VILASAM, AYILAM,
MUDAKKAL, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695103
4 VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O VASUDEVAN, PARAMBIL VEEDU,
AYILAM, MUDAKKAL, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 695103
5 AMALDEV
S/O SAHADEVANPILLAI, SNEHA, MYVALLIELA, AYILAM,
MUDAKKAL, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ( IS
IMPLEADED S PER ORDER DATED 12.03.2026 IN CRL.M.A. NO.
1/2026 )
BY ADV SHRI.AJOY VENU
OTHER PRESENT:
PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.7137 of 2025 4
2026:KER:22451
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 12 in S.C. No. 229/2021 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal ('Trial Court', for short), which has originated from Crime No. 481/2014 registered by the Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the commission of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
2. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that:
On 12.04.2014, at around 14:00 hours, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and the third accused threw explosives at him and the other injured persons and caused grievous injuries to them with an intention to commit their CRL.MC NO.7137 of 2025 5 2026:KER:22451 murder. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
3. The petitioners have filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case on the assertion that the dispute that led to the registration of the crime has been amicably settled between them and the respondents 2 to 5, who have executed Annexures A3 to A6 affidavits.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 submit that with the intervention of well-wishers and friends, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. The party respondents do not desire to prosecute the case against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. [(2025) KHC 6131] in support of the contention that there is no legal CRL.MC NO.7137 of 2025 6 2026:KER:22451 prohibition in this Court quashing a criminal proceedings involving an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code/109 BNS. All that this Court has to look into is the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the weapon used and the nature of injuries suffered by the victim. The learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the accident register-cum- wound certificates of the respondents 2 to 5 and submits that the party respondents have only suffered abrasions and minor injuries on their bodies. He contended that other than for the bare allegation that the petitioners attempted to murder the respondents 2 to 5, there is no material to corroborate the prosecution case. Therefore, this Court may quash entire proceedings as against the petitioners.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the Investigating Officer has reported that the parties have arrived at a genuine and bona fide settlement. She does not seriously dispute the CRL.MC NO.7137 of 2025 7 2026:KER:22451 submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents 2 to 5. She concedes to the fact that the respondents 2 to 5 have not suffered any serious injury, which stands corroborated by the accident register-cum-wound certificate appended with Annexure A2 final report.
7. The scope and ambit of the inherent powers of this Court to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688], Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. (Supra), and in a host of judicial pronouncements. It is held that in cases where the offences are not grave or heinous, and where the parties have amicably settled the dispute, to secure the ends of justice, the High Court may invoke its inherent powers to quash the proceedings, particularly if continuation of the CRL.MC NO.7137 of 2025 8 2026:KER:22451 prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose.
8. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the materials on record, particularly after going through the accident- register-cum-wound certificate of the respondents 2 to 5, which substantiates that the said respondents have only suffered abrasions and minor injuries, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, particularly since there is no public interest or element of societal concern involved; the chances of conviction are remote in view of the settlement; and the continuation of the proceedings would merely burden the judicial process without advancing the cause of justice. Furthermore, the settlement would promote harmony between the parties and restore peace. Hence, this Court is persuaded to hold that this is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
CRL.MC NO.7137 of 2025 9
2026:KER:22451
In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed.
Accordingly, Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C. No. 229/2021 of the Trial Court, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk
CRL.MC NO.7137 of 2025 10
2026:KER:22451
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 7137 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO. 481/2014 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION DATED 12.04.2014 Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET ALONG WITH MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 481/2014 FILED BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ATTINGAL DATED 13.02.2017 Annexure A3 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2024 Annexure A4 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2024 Annexure A5 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2024 Annexure A6 THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY MR. AMALDEV DATED 07.03.2024.