Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
SEETHA N.R – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 9577 OF 2025|CRIME NO.179/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR, SRI.SHAKTHI PRAKASH, SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN M.S.
For the Respondents: ADV SHRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD.
Inherent powers of the court may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings when disputes are amicably settled and the offences are not grave.
Headnote:The petitioner invokes inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings in Crime No.179 of 2025 citing amicable settlement. The court considers the gravity of offences under IPC and previous judgments reinforcing inherent powers. The court concludes proceedings quashed due to the settlement promoting harmony among parties.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case details. (Para 1) |
| 2. invocation of inherent jurisdiction based on dispute resolution. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. acknowledgment of no objections from parties involved. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. legal precedents supporting quashing due to settlement. (Para 6) |
| 5. conclusion drawn based on case merits and societal interests. (Para 7) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.179 of
2025 registered by the Pattanakkadu Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 120B , 409, 419, 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 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 3rd respondent.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the other accused in the crime have paid the entire outstanding amount due to the KSFE. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has no objection in the entire 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 exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed.
Accordingly, Annexure I FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.179 of 2025 of the Pattanakkadu Police Station, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
