Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
SGS AGRO FARMS LTD, S.G.SEKAR, RAJAKUMAR GANASEKAR, ROBIN VIJAYKUMAR, G.SATISHDAS, G.SHANTHI, G.SANDEEP DAS, S.FAUSTINA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10087 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF, M.H.ASIF ALI, ARAVIND T RAMESH, ASHIK ALI M.H., ASWATHI K.C.
For the Respondents: ITTY PAULSON, M.P.PRASANTH
Inherent powers can be invoked to quash proceedings in non-grave offences settled amicably, promoting justice and judicial efficiency.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged the proceedings in C.C.No.95/2022 for alleged offences under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Act, claiming amicable settlement. The Court, acknowledging the reported settlement and lack of public interest in prosecution, quashed the proceedings. Issues included the extent of inherent powers and the nature of offences. The ruling reaffirmed that where non-grave offences are amicably settled, quashing of proceedings aligns with justice. The Crl. M.C. is thus allowed, quashing all proceedings against the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and settlement circumstances. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discussions on the amicable resolution and state agreement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on quashing proceedings based on settlement. (Para 6 , 7) |
O R D E R
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2025 The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 8 in C.C.No.95/2022 on the file of the Special Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur for the Trial of Cases under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, which has arisen from Crime No.597/2022 registered by the Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 4 20 read with Section 3 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 , 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
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 2nd respondent, who has executed Annexure A2 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 2nd 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 2nd 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, 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 exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
