The court may exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings if the offences are not severe, and the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

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. 9597 OF 2025 CRIME NO.567/2024 OF Yeroor Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN FIR NO.567 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PUNALUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 BINU SAMUEL, AGED 53 YEARS D/O. LATE P.K. THOMAS, YEARS, PADINJATTINKARA BANKERS, PATHADY, YEROOR, KOLLAM RURAL, KERALA, INDIA,, PIN - 691312

2 SHEEBA RENI, AGED 45 YEARS D/O. LATE VARGHESE,PADINJATTINKARA BANKERS, PATHADY, YERROOR, KOLLAM RURAL, KERALA, INDIA,, PIN - 691312 BY ADVS.

SHRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SHRI.SHEHIN S.

SMT.DEVIKA S.

SMT.RESHMA DAS P.

RESPONDENTS/STATE/ COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, YERROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 691312

3 SRI. JEMINI, AGED 63 YEARS SON OF MUHAMMED ISMAIL, NELLIVILA VEEDU, PATHADY, BHARATHEEPURAM P.O., YEROOR, KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM RURAL, KERALA,, PIN - 691312 BY ADV SHRI.M.MANOJ KUMAR (CHELAKKADAN)

OTHER PRESENT:

PP SRI M P PRASANTH 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 18^th day of November, 2025

ORDER

The petitioners are accused in Crime No.

567/2024 registered by the Yerroor Police Station, Kollam District, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 420 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 have entered into Annexure B agreement, and he also filed an 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 third respondent.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the Investigating Officer has reported that the matter has not yet been settled since the money would be paid only within six months.

5. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that, he has no objection to the proceedings being quashed.

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 burden the judicial process without advancing the cause of justice. Furthermore, the settlement would promote harmony between the parties and restore