Kerala High Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Nivin Pauly and Abrid Shine
Malayalam actor Nivin Pauly and filmmaker Abrid Shine have received legal relief after the Kerala High Court quashed a criminal case involving allegations of cheating and financial irregularities linked to the film Action Hero Biju 2. The order followed an amicable settlement between the parties and brought the legal proceedings connected to the dispute to an end.
Justice P.V. Balakrishnan passed the order on October 26, 2026. The court considered the settlement reached between the actor, director and film producer P.S. Shamnas, who had initiated the complaint. The court noted that the parties had resolved their differences and no longer had outstanding grievances against one another.
The case had been registered at the Thalayolaparambu police station in Kottayam district. The complaint alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating in connection with financial arrangements involving the film Action Hero Biju 2. Nivin Pauly and Abrid Shine approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings after the dispute was settled.
Background of the Film Rights Dispute
P.S. Shamnas, proprietor of the production company Indian Movie Makers, had raised concerns over financial arrangements connected to the Malayalam film Mahaveeryar and the proposed sequel Action Hero Biju 2. According to his complaint, he had invested approximately Rs 3.5 crore to Rs 4 crore in Mahaveeryar, which did not perform as expected commercially.
Shamnas alleged that arrangements were subsequently discussed to compensate for the financial loss. He claimed that he was promised a role as a co-producer of Action Hero Biju 2 and a share in the profits from the film’s overseas distribution rights.
The producer further alleged that he invested money towards the production of the sequel but later discovered that its overseas distribution rights had been transferred to a Dubai-based company. According to the complaint, the transaction was valued at around Rs 5 crore, and he alleged that the arrangement had been carried out without his knowledge or in a manner that affected his financial interests.
These claims formed the basis of the criminal case against Nivin Pauly and Abrid Shine. The allegations were part of the complaint and should not be treated as findings established through a trial. The High Court subsequently quashed the proceedings after the parties reached a settlement.
Separate Case Involving an Alleged Forged Signature
The dispute also involved a separate criminal complaint initiated by Nivin Pauly against Shamnas. The actor alleged that his signature had been forged on documents submitted to the Kerala Film Chamber of Commerce in connection with the film’s registration and production rights.
Following that complaint, a separate case was registered by the Palarivattom police in Ernakulam. The proceedings involved allegations of forgery and the use of a forged document as genuine. Shamnas approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash that case as well.
As the parties reached an overall settlement, the court considered the requests concerning both sets of criminal proceedings. The High Court quashed the case against Nivin Pauly and Abrid Shine as well as the separate case against Shamnas.
The settlement was confirmed during the court proceedings, and the prosecution indicated that it had no objection to quashing the cases. The court accepted the settlement and concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose in the circumstances.
Court’s Observations on the Settlement
While passing the order, the High Court noted that the parties had amicably resolved the disputes that led to the registration of the criminal cases. It observed that the alleged offences in the matter were not of a serious nature that would have a significant impact on society.
The court also considered whether continuing the prosecution would serve any meaningful purpose after the settlement. In view of the parties’ decision to resolve their differences and the circumstances presented before it, the court concluded that the criminal proceedings should be quashed.
The ruling provided relief to all three parties involved in the connected cases. It also marked a legal development in a dispute that had attracted attention because of the involvement of a prominent Malayalam actor, a film director and a producer.
The decision was based on the circumstances of the case and the settlement placed before the court. It should not be interpreted as a general ruling that all disputes involving film production investments or distribution rights can be resolved in the same way.
What the Ruling Means for the Film Industry
Disagreements over production budgets, co-production arrangements, film registration and distribution rights can create legal complications in the entertainment industry. Film projects often involve several parties, including actors, directors, producers, financiers and distributors. Clear agreements and transparent financial records are important to help prevent disputes over ownership, investments and revenue sharing.
The dispute involving Action Hero Biju 2 highlighted how disagreements over financial commitments and overseas distribution arrangements can lead to criminal proceedings when one party alleges that contractual obligations have not been honoured. The separate complaint over the alleged use of a forged signature also showed how disagreements about production documentation can lead to additional legal action.
The High Court’s decision brought the connected criminal proceedings to an end following the settlement. However, the case also underlines the importance of documenting production agreements, distribution arrangements and financial commitments clearly before a film moves forward.
For Nivin Pauly and Abrid Shine, the order represents legal relief in the case brought by Shamnas. For the producer, the settlement provides a route to resolve the dispute without continuing the criminal proceedings. The ruling is therefore a significant development in the legal disagreement surrounding the film.
The latest development is the High Court’s decision to quash the cases after the parties reached an amicable settlement. The dispute had centred on allegations relating to investment in Mahaveeryar, arrangements for Action Hero Biju 2 and the handling of overseas distribution rights. With the court accepting the settlement, the criminal proceedings connected to the dispute have been quashed.
