Inherent powers may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings when parties amicably settle disputes, provided offences aren't grave.

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. 9183 OF 2025 CRIME NO.282/2022 OF Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.836 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,MALAPPURAM PETITIONERs/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

1 ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. ABU HAJI,ALUMKANDI HOUSE, AKKAPARAMBU, PULIYAKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673641

2 HARIS, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. ALAVI,AMBALASSERI HOUSE, MUTHUVALLUR P.O.,KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638 BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638

3 SIRAJUDHEEN, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, ILLATHODI, SUHRA MANZIL, KIZHISSERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 673641 BY ADV SHRI.KIRAN THOMAS 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

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No. 836/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram, which has arisen from Crime No. 282/2022 registered by the Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 427, 294(b), and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The petitioners have 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 petitioners and the third respondent, who has executed Annexure C 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 second 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 procee