SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
KABEER K.T. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 9400 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.435/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
For the Respondents: SMT.K.V.RAJESWARI, SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA

The High Court may quash criminal proceedings in cases involving non-heinous offences if the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

Headnote:The petitioner is accused in Crime No.435/2025 alleging offences under Sections 329(3) and 324(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings, asserting an amicable settlement. After assessment, the court verified the settlement and emphasized its inherent authority to quash proceedings when disputes are resolved amicably without public interest. Ultimately, the Court allowed the Crl. M.C., quashing FIR and all proceedings against the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. overview of criminal case and settlement (Para 1 , 2)
2. hearing and settlement acknowledgment (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's authority in resolving cases by settlement (Para 6 , 7)

O R D E R Dated this the 27th day of November, 2025 The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.435/2025 registered by the Kollengode Police Station, Palakkad, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 329 (3) and 324(5) 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 third respondent, who has executed Annexure 2 affidavit, affirming the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for 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 third 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gian 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 exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed. Accordingly, Annexure 1 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.435/2025 of the Kollengode Police Station, Palakkad, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top