Kerala High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Kerala HC Quashes IPC 409, 420 Proceedings Against 3 Accused After Complainant Settles the Dispute

SREEJITHv.STATE OF KERALA

Kerala HC Quashes IPC 409, 420 Proceedings Against 3 Accused After Complainant Settles the Dispute. SREEJITH vs STATE OF KERALA. Kerala High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the FIR, final report and consequential proceedings against the petitioners could be quashed under Section 528 BNSS in light of the parties’ settlement

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1085/2016, arising from Crime No. 1333/2016, against the petitioners

01Facts

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, sought to quash the FIR, final report and further proceedings in C.C. No. 1085/2016, arising from Crime No. 1333/2016 of North Paravur Police Station.

pp. 3–4

The allegations concerned offences under Sections 409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

pp. 3–4

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

pp. 3–4

The de facto complainant filed an affidavit stating that the dispute had been amicably settled and that he did not wish to proceed; the Public Prosecutor confirmed the settlement and that the complainant’s statement had been recorded

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the FIR, final report and consequential proceedings against the petitioners could be quashed under Section 528 BNSS in light of the parties’ settlement

pp. 3–4

ii.Whether quashing was justified in the interests of justice following the settlement and the de facto complainant’s stated intention not to proceed

p. 4

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings

p. 3

The alleged offences were under Sections 409, 420 and 34 IPC

p. 3

The Court treated the amicable settlement and the de facto complainant’s decision not to pursue the matter as grounds to exercise its quashing jurisdiction in the interests of justice.

The order cites no precedent or further legal test.

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 409Section 420Section 34

04Reasoning

The de facto complainant had affirmed the settlement and stated that he had no intention to proceed, while the Public Prosecutor confirmed the settlement and the recording of the complainant’s statement

p. 4

In light of those circumstances, the Court found no reason to refuse quashing and considered it appropriate to facilitate peaceful relations between the parties.

p. 4

05Holding

The Court allowed the petition and quashed Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1085/2016, arising from Crime No. 1333/2016, against the petitioners

pp. 4–5
Kerala High Court

Original Court PDF

SREEJITHvsSTATE OF KERALA

Kerala High Court · October 23, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment