A ₹1.9 crore production dispute ended in a settlement, and with it the cheating case against Nivin Pauly: the Kerala High Court has quashed the FIR after recording that the producer who complained no longer wishes to pursue it.
Kochi: Allowing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Kerala High Court on October 26, 2026 quashed the FIR registered against actor Nivin Pauly for cheating over a film production dispute, noting that the complainant had no subsisting grievance and that the Public Prosecutor had vouched for the settlement [Nivin Pauly v. State of Kerala and Another].
The petition, Crl.M.C. No. 7204 of 2025, was decided by Justice P.V. Balakrishnan. Advocate Millu Dandapani appeared for the actor, Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu with Advocates S. Mohammed Al Rafi and Thajuna Maria Francis for the second respondent, producer P.S. Shamnas, and Public Prosecutor Devadas H. Mallan for the State.
Settlement, and a prosecutor’s assurance
The Public Prosecutor described the settlement as genuine and bona fide, the Court noted, and the State had no objection to the FIR being quashed. The Court then reasoned:
the offences alleged against the petitioner are not serious in nature and do not have a serious impact on society.
No purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, the Court held, and the chances of conviction were bleak. It therefore found this a fit case to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. The order does not examine the merits of the allegations. Its operative direction reads:
FIR in Crime No.808/2025 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station as against the petitioner, is hereby quashed.
This report covers the order in the actor’s petition, Crl.M.C. No. 7204 of 2025, alone.
The complaint behind the FIR
Crime No. 808/2025 was registered at Thalayolaparambu Police Station, Kottayam, on July 16, 2025 under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant was Shamnas, proprietor of Indian Movie Makers, who alleged a fraud of ₹1.9 crore. By his account, he had invested in a film that failed at the box office and was then promised a co-producer’s role in a later project, with the overseas rights allegedly sold to a Dubai-based company on the strength of an outdated agreement. These were the complainant’s allegations, they remained untested, and the actor denied them.
Other proceedings ran alongside. The actor filed a private complaint alleging forgery of his signature, and a separate case was registered at Palarivattom Police Station. The papers before the Court also refer to a civil suit and arbitration proceedings between the parties. After the parties settled, Shamnas swore an affidavit on September 30, 2026 recording that he does not wish to pursue the case.
What the order shows
The order follows the settled approach that the High Court can quash a criminal case arising from a private commercial dispute once the parties have genuinely settled and the offences are not serious in their impact on society. It also shows how a dispute that ran across an FIR, a forgery complaint, a civil suit and arbitration came to an end through a single settlement.
Case Title: Nivin Pauly v. State of Kerala and Another [Crl.M.C. No. 7204 of 2025]
Bench: Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, Kerala High Court
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Millu Dandapani for the petitioner; Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu with Advocates S. Mohammed Al Rafi and Thajuna Maria Francis for the second respondent; Public Prosecutor Devadas H. Mallan for the State.