Courts may quash proceedings if parties amicably settle disputes and offences are not grave, emphasizing judicial efficiency.

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. 9945 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1946/2025 OF Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

BIJU T.P, AGED 45 YEARS POKKATHUCHIRA HOUSE, THAIKATTUSSERI PO CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688528 BY ADV SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED PERSONS:

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

2 SHAMEER, AGED 47 YEARS S/O SULAIMAN, MADAVNA HOUSE, POTHANICAD KARA, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686671

3 RAHIM MUHAMMED, AGED 59 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, UPPOTTIL HOUSE, PALLIPRAM, MUDICKAL BHAGAM, MARAMBILLY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683105 BY ADV SRI.P.K.SUBHASH OTHER PRESENT:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI M P PRASANTH 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 Crime No.

1946/2025 registered by the Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

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 respondents 2 and 3, who have executed Annexures A2 and A3 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 respondents 2 and 3.

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 respondents have no subsisting grievance and do not wish to pursue the prosecution, and have 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 burden the judicial process without advancing the cause of justice. Furthermore, the settlement would promote harmony between the parties and restore peace. Hence, this Court is persuaded to hold that this is a fit case to exerci