Courts can invoke inherent powers to quash proceedings when offenses are minor and parties have amicably settled, promoting judicial economy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 10020 OF 2025 CRIME NO.143/2020 OF Kalady Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1005 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IV, PERUMBAVOOR PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

BABU , AGED 50 YEARS S/O KARTHIKEYAN , RESIDING AT PAKIDAPPILLY HOUSE, MANJAPRA, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683581 BY ADVS.

SHRI.HARIKIRSHNAN V.A SHRI.AKASH JOSHI SHRI.ADESH JOSHI SHRI.RAJKAMAL RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – ., PIN - 682031

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683574

3 VARGHEES PALATTY , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O PAPPU RESIDING AT PALATTY HOUSE VADUKKUMBHAGAM , MANJAPRA KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683581 BY ADV SHRI.NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN OTHER PRESENT:

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SMT SEETHA S THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

21.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2025

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 1005/2020 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Perumbavoor, (‘Trial Court’, for short), which has arisen from Crime No. 143/2020 registered by the Kalady Police Station, Ernakulam Rural, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections

447, 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, 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 petitioner and the third respondent, who has executed Annexure A3 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 party 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court inGian 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 burd