The High Court may quash criminal proceedings when parties reach an amicable settlement, especially for non-grave offences.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 7592 OF 2019 CRIME NO.543/2018 OF Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.695 OF 2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOCHI PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

SARUN, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.SARASAN, KANDATHIPARAMBU HOUSE, OPPOSITE OF NJANODHAYAM TEMPLE, EDAKOCHI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682010.

BY ADVS.

SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ SRI.VINOD S. PILLAI SMT.RONA GEEVARGHESE KUM.GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/COMPLAINANT:

1 ADWAITH, AGED 17 YEARS (MINOR), S/O.VIDHYADHARAN, PANDARAPATTATHIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O., KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682506, REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN, VIDHYADHARAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PANDARAPATTATHIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O., KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682506.

2 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031.

BY ADV SHRI.T.A.GEORGE JOSEPH OTHER PRESENT:

SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2025

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.

695/2018 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi, which has arisen from Crime No. 543/2018 registered by the Palluruthy Kasaba Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 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 first respondent, who has executed Annexures A4 and A5 affidavits, affirming the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for the first 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 proce