Kerala High Court
Muhammed Febin S vs State Of Kerala on 13 November, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:86543
CRL.MC NO. 9523 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9523 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1018/2017 OF Attingal Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1197 OF 2017
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,ATTINGAL
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5:
1 MUHAMMED FEBIN S,
AGED 30 YEARS
KONATHU VEEDU, NADAYARA, VARKALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA, PIN - 690141
2 MUHAMMED SHAFEEK M,
AGED 27 YEARS
THAHIRA MANZIL, VANCHIYOOR P.O., ALAMCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695102
3 NASEEB SHAH N,
AGED 27 YEARS
NIYAS MANZIL, NEAR H.S.S ALAMCODE, ALAMCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695102
4 HAJA N,
AGED 27 YEARS
KADAYIL VEEDU, KOCHUVILA, ALAMCODE P.O., ALAMCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695102
5 MUHAMMED SHAJARKHAN,
AGED 27 YEARS
SHAJAR MANZIL, MARUTHARAKONAM, PARAKKATTIL,
ALAMCODE P.O., ALAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
2025:KER:86543
CRL.MC NO. 9523 OF 2025
2
KERALA, PIN - 695102
BY ADVS.
SRI.BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN
SMT.RESHMA SUKUMARAN
SMT.CHARUTHA BHAIJU
SMT.CHANDHANA BHAIJU
SMT.FATHIM NAVAS
SMT.KAVYA RANI JAYAPRAKASH
SMT.LEKSHMI PRIYA V.
SHRI.MUHAMMED SHUHAIB A.S.
SMT.AISWARYA JALIN
SHRI.BASIL SCARIA
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 AZEEMUDEEN,
AGED 36 YEARS
SHA VILLA, KAVUMNADA, MEVARKKAL, ALAMCODE, ATTINGAL
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695102
BY ADV SHRI.BASIL SAJAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:86543
CRL.MC NO. 9523 OF 2025
3
ORDER
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2025 The petitioners are the accused 1 to 5 in C.C.No.1197/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal, which has arisen from Crime No.1018/2017 registered by the Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,149, 341, 323,294(b) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash all further proceedings in the above case. It is asserted that the dispute that led to the registration of the crime has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the second respondent, who has executed Annexure 3 affidavit, affirming the settlement.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the 2025:KER:86543 CRL.MC NO. 9523 OF 2025 4 petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the second respondent.
4. The learned counsel on either side submits that, with the intervention of relatives and well-wishers, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably. The second respondent has no subsisting grievance and does not wish to pursue the prosecution, and has no objection to the proceedings being quashed.
5. 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. The State has no objection to the Criminal Miscellaneous case being allowed.
6. 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], State of Madhya 2025:KER:86543 CRL.MC NO. 9523 OF 2025 5 Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688], Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. [(2025) 4 SCC 78], 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 prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose.
7. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the materials on record, I am satisfied that: the offences alleged are not heinous or of a serious nature; no public interest or element of societal concern is 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 2025:KER:86543 CRL.MC NO. 9523 OF 2025 6 between the parties and restore peace. Hence, this Court is persuaded to hold that this is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed. Accordingly, Annexure 1 FIR, Annexure 2 final report in Crime No. 1018/2017 of the Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1197/2017 on the file of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm13/11/2025 2025:KER:86543 CRL.MC NO. 9523 OF 2025 7 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9523/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure -1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.
1018/2017 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL Annexure -2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C NO. 1197/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, ATTINGAL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO. 1018/2017 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL Annexure -3 THE ORIGINAL OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT