Inherent powers can quash proceedings based on amicable settlement when offences are not grave or in public interest.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 10096 OF 2025 CRIME NO.762/2025 OF Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN FIR NO.762 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, CHERTHALA PETITIONER/S:

*1 LIJO JOJI, [DELETED]

AGED 29 YEARS S/O. JOJI DEVASIA,KOLLARITHAZHATHU, KODAMTHURUTH,KUTHIATHODU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688533 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DT.12.12.25 IN CRL.MA 2/2025.

2 VISHNU P.M, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. SUSEELA, PADINJARE KUTTICHIRA, EZHUPUNNA SOUTH P.O., KODAMTHURUTH, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 688537 BY ADVS.

SHRI.BABY THOMAS SHRI.K.K.MOHANDAS SHRI.ALBERTHOVE FRANCIS.M.G.

SMT.EHLAS HALEEMA C.K.

SHRI.BIJU GEORGE SMT.ALICIA JOSE RESPONDENT/S:

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

2 KALESH, AGED 43 YEARS S/O KAMAL ADHARAN,KALESH BHAVAN, ERAMALLOOR P.O, EZHUPUNNA PW9, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 688001 BY ADVS.

SHRI.JOHNY GEORGE SHRI.GEORGE T.J SHRI.JOBY JOSEPH SRI.INDRAJITH S KAIMAL OTHER PRESENT:

PP SRI M P PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

12.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

------------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No. 10096 OF 2025 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2025 ORDER The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.762/2025 registered by the Arroor Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(2) and 324(4) read with Section 3(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 Surksha Sanhita , 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 2^nd respondent, who has executed Annexure-B 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 cha