The court can quash criminal proceedings if the disputes are amicably settled and not of a serious nature.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 10819 OF 2025 CRIME NO.681/2023 OF Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.584 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -IV,KOZHIKODE PETITIONER/FIRST ACCUSED:

MISBAH V.T, AGED 22 YEARS S/O SAKKEER HUSSAIN,BAITHUL BISBAH HOUSE, NAINAM VALAPPU,PALLIKKANDI, KALLAI P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673003 BY ADVS.

SHRI.NAJAH EBRAHIM V.P.

SMT.HANANA FATHIMA RESPONDEN T S / S TATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINAN T :

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

2 FAYIS MUHAMMED A.V, AGED 29 YEARS S/O ABDUL RASHEED, AAZHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, WANDOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679328 BY ADV SHRI.MUHAMMAD SABITH OTHER PRESENT:

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

10.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2025

ORDER

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

584/2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode (‘Trial Court’, for short) which has originated from Crime No. 681/2023 registered by the Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 323, 324 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code .

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 second respondent, who has executed Annexure C affidavit, affirming the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, 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 proceedings would merely burden the judicial process without advan