The court can quash proceedings in non-serious offences if the parties have amicably settled their dispute, promoting justice and judicial efficiency.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.429/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal, which arises out of the Crime No.340/2022 registered by the Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 283 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash Annexure A-1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.429/2022. It is averred in the criminal miscellaneous case that the dispute that led to the registration of the crime has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent who has affirmed Annexure A-2 affidavit, vouching for the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The learned counsel on either side submit that, with the intervention of relatives and well-wishers, the parties have resolved their differences amicably. The 2^nd respondent is no longer desirous of pursuing the prosecution and has no objection in 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 bona fide settlement and the 2^nd respondent has voluntarily executed the affidavit. The State has no objection to the Crl.M.C. being allowed.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [ (2019) 5 SCC 688 ], Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. [ (2025) 4 SCC 78 ], and in a catena of decisions, has authoritatively held that in cases where the offences are not grave or heinous, involving mental depravity, and where the parties have amicably settled the dispute, the High Court, to secure the ends of justice, may invoke its inherent powers to quash the proceedings, particularly if continuation of the prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose.

7. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am satisfied that: the offences alleged are not heinous or of a serious nature, involving mental depravity; no public interest or element of societal concern is involved; the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents; the 2^nd respondent has voluntarily executed the affidavit; 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 between the parties and restore peace. Hence, this Court finds this as a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Accordingly, Annexure A-1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C. No.429/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.