Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48796
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
NADIRSHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 8441 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.RUPESH RAVINDRAN, SRI.A.M.ABDULLA
For the Respondents: SRI.A.C.DEVY
The court may quash criminal proceedings if parties amicably settle disputes, particularly in non-heinous cases.
Headnote:The petitioners are accused in a criminal case arising from a police complaint alleging offences under IPC Sections 506(i) and 34. They invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings, asserting amicable settlement confirmed by affidavit of the second respondent. Following counsel submissions, the court noted the resolution of disputes and lack of public interest in prosecution continuation, referencing Supreme Court precedents on quashing based on settlement. The court found no real chance of conviction, deeming quashing aligned with justice. The final order quashes all proceedings against the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners are accused in a case involving ipc section 506(i) and initiated quash proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. amicable resolutions were achieved, indicated by counsel submissions and affidavit of second respondent. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court reasons quashing is justified based on non-heinous nature of offences and minimal public interest. (Para 6 , 7) |
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.669 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Perumbavoor, which has arisen from Crime No.2183 of 2021 registered by the Perumbavoor Police Station, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Section 506 (i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , to quash all further proceedings in the above case. It is asserted that the dispute that led to the registration of the crime has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, who has executed Annexure 3 affidavit, affirming the settlement.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. The learned counsel on either side submits that, with the intervention of relatives and well- wishers, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably. The 2nd respondent has no subsisting grievance and does not wish to pursue the prosecution, and has no objection to 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 genuine and bona fide settlement. The State has no objection to the Criminal Miscellaneous case being allowed.
6. The scope and ambit of the inherent powers of this Court to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties have been authoritatively laid down by 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 host of judicial pronouncements. It is held that in cases where the offences are not grave or heinous, and where the parties have amicably settled the dispute, to secure the ends of justice, the High Court may invoke its inherent powers to quash the proceedings, particularly if continuation of the prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose.
7. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the materials on record, I am satisfied that: the offences alleged are not heinous or of a serious nature; no public interest or element of societal concern is involved; 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 is persuaded to hold that this is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed.
Accordingly, Annexure 1 FIR, Annexure 2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.669 of 2023 on the file of the above court, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
