SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
DEVANANDH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10614 OF 2024|CRIME NO.128/2024|C.C.NO.724 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.BASIL MATHEW, SHRI.AAROMAL THULASI
For the Respondents: SRI.P.S.ANISHAD

The inherent powers of the High Court may be invoked to quash criminal proceedings when disputes between parties are amicably settled and do not involve grave offences.

Headnote:The petitioners approached the Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash proceedings in C.C.No.724 of 2024 based on an amicable settlement with the respondents. The Court, referencing precedents, held the offences not grave and deemed it just to quash proceedings. The main issues revolved around the validity of settlement and public interest. The Court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and proceedings.

Table of Content
1. the initiation of trial based on fir. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments supporting the quashing. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's rationale for quashing based on settlement. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

O R D E R

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.724 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Alathur ('Trial Court', in short), which originates from Crime No.128 of 2024 registered by the Padagiri Police Station, Palakkad, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2)m and 115(2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

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 respondents 2 and 3, who have executed a joint affidavit dated 14.10.2024, affirming the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

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 respondents 2 and 3 have no subsisting grievance and do not wish to pursue the prosecution, and have 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 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 A2 FIR and all further proceedings in C.C.No.724 of 2024 of the Trial Court, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top