Settlement of non-grave offences may lead to quashing of proceedings, but public interest offences remain unaffected by such settlements.

O R D E R Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2025 The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 2/2025, registered by the Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 281 , 125(a), and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , ( BNS ) and Sections 134A and 134B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , (M.V. Act, in short)

2. The petitioner contends that the dispute that led to the registration of the crime has been amicably settled between him and the 3rd respondent, who has executed Annexure A2 affidavit, affirming the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the third 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 third respondent has no subsisting grievance and do 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 State has no objection in the offences under the BNS being quashed. Since the offences in respect of Sections 134A and 134B of the M.V.Act is committed against the State, the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent is irrelevant. The parties cannot have a settlement of the disputes in respect of such offences. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer to quash Annexure A1 FIR in respect of the said offences may be rejected.

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. In the aforesaid decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the disputes that have amicably settled between the parties, which is not against public interest or there is no element of social concern, can be quashed by exercising the inherent powers of this Court. I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that since the offences under M.V. Act charged against the petitioner is not a matter that is committed against the 3^rd respondent, but, it is an offence against the society at large, I am not inclined to quash Annexure A1 FIR in its entirety. Nonetheless, as the offences allegedly committed against the 3^rd respondent, can obviously be quashed, as they are not heinous or serious in nature, and there is no public interest involved.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Crl.M.C is partly allowed. Accordingly, Annexure A1 FIR, in respect of the offences punishable under Section 281 , 125(a) and 125(b) of the BNS , as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed. It would be upto the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court and plead guilty in respect of the offences under the M.V. Act. If the petitioner pleads guilty to the said charges, the Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law.