Inherent jurisdiction exercised to quash proceedings due to amicable settlement between parties in non-serious offences.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 10TH MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 465 OF 2026 CRIME NO.1182/2023 OF Cheranelloor Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.52 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III(MOBILE), ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

1 SURESH V.L, AGED 53 YEARS S/O LAKSHMANAN, RESIDING AT VELLIYATH VEETIL, PANDIT KARUPPAN ROAD, EDAYAKUNNAM, CHERANELLOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682034

2 REDHUL V.R, AGED 29 YEARS S/O REGHU V.L, VELIYATH HOUSE 145, PANDIT KURUPPAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682034

3 VYSHAK V.R, AGED 25 YEARS S/O REGHU V.L, VELIYATH HOUSE 145, PANDIT KURUPPAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682034 BY ADVS.

SHRI.ASHISH GOPAL K G SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PERUMBAVOOR)

SHRI.SYAM K.P.

SHRI.P.MUHAMMED SHIYAS SMT.POOJA K.

SMT.VINIMOL V.S.

SMT.JENY AUGUSTIAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

2 SOORAJ DINESHAN, AGED 27 YEARS S/O DINESHAN, RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBU HOUSE, CHANTHU MASTER ROAD , VISHNUPURAM, CHERANALLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682034 BY ADVS.

SHRI.T.M.MANU SHRI.ANTONY NIKHIL REMELO OTHER PRESENT:

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C.No.52/2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III (Mobile), Ernakulam (‘Trial Court’, for short), which has originated from Crime No. 1182/2023 registered by the Cheranalloor Police Station, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

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 second respondent, who has executed Annexure III 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 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 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 cas