In cases of settled disputes without public interest, criminal proceedings can be quashed to prevent an abuse of court process.

ORDER

Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2025 Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.282 of

2025 registered at the Palghat Town North Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 296 (b) and 351(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act .

2. The crime was registered on the allegation that, on 02.03.2025, at about 10:30 hrs, the accused verbally abused and threatened the de facto complainant through voice messages posted in a WhatsApp group.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute, which led to the incident and registration of the crime, is amicably settled and Annexure-2 afÏdavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent vouching this fact.

4. Learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent also submitted that the dispute is settled and her client has no grievance against the petitioner.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, even though the dispute is settled, petitioner is involved in another crime alleging commission of the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that, considering that the allegation in the instant case is of having posted messages in a closed WhatsApp group, the proceedings may be quashed in view of the settlement.

7. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged and having perused the afÏdavit, the contents of which are vouched to be true and voluntary by the Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, I am satisfied that no public interest is involved in this matter and the dispute has been settled amicably. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction. As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court inMadan Mohan Abbot v State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] , there is no impediment in granting the relief. Pendency of a crime alleging the offence under Section 302 of the IPC would have normally deterred this Court from exercising the inherent power. As far as the case at hand is concerned, the offences alleged are only under Sections 296 (b) and 351(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act , with respect to an alleged derogatory comment posted in a WhatsApp group. Being so, I am inclined to quash the proceedings, despite pendency of other crimes.