Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48274
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
RAJU.C.ISSAC – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 6390 OF 2025 | ST NO.528 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.BABY NANDHINI K.
For the Respondents: SMT.SHEEBA MARIAM. J., SMT.ARUNDHATHY K. ALIAS SMT. SEETHA.S
The court may invoke its inherent powers to quash proceedings when offences are not grave and parties have settled amicably.
Headnote:In this criminal miscellaneous case, the petitioner approached the High Court to quash FIR and subsequent proceedings based on a settlement between the parties as per Annexure A1 and A2. The court found that the alleged offences were not grave and the parties had amicably settled, leading to the conclusion that continuation of prosecution would be fruitless, thus permitting the quashing of proceedings. The court emphasized the judicial discretion in exercising inherent powers for such cases. The final outcome allowed the Crl.M.C, quashing all associated legal actions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused seeks quash of fir due to settlement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel confirms amicable settlement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court supports quashing based on non-serious nature of offences. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 528/2022 on the file of the Grama Nyayalaya, Vadavucode, which arises out of Crime No. 176/2022 registered by the Kunnathunadu Police Station, as against the petitioner for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code .
2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, to quash Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 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 petitioner and the second respondent, which is evidenced by the affidavit dated
30.06.2025 executed by the second respondent.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the second respondent .
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 party 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 party 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 party 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 A1 FIR, Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.176/2022 of the Kunnathunadu Police Station and all further proceedings in S.T. No. 528/2022 on the file of the Grama Nyayalaya, Vadavucode, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
