Inherent powers may be invoked to quash proceedings in minor offences if parties amicably settle the dispute.

ORDER

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2025

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.166/2022 on the file on the Grama Nyayalaya, Pandalam, which arises out of Crime No.1605/2014 registered by the Pandalam Police Station, as against the petitioners for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323 and 294(b) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, to quash Annexure A1 Final Report and all further proceedings in the above crime. 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 petitioners and the respondents 3 to 6, who have affirmed Annexures A2 to A5 affidavits, vouching for the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 6.

4. The learned counsel on either side submits that, with the intervention of relatives and well-wishers, the parties have resolved their differences amicably. The respondents 3 to 6 are 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 respondents 3 to 6 have voluntarily executed the affidavits.

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 petitioners do not have criminal antecedents; the respondents 3 to 6 have voluntarily executed the affidavits; 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 A1 Final Report in Crime No.1605/2014 of the Pandalam Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No.166/2022 on the file of the Grama Nyayalaya, Pandalam, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.