The High Court can quash criminal proceedings if the dispute is settled amicably and the alleged offenses are not grave or heinous.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 11108 OF 2025 CRIME NO.19/2018 OF Vadakara Police Station, Kozhikode AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.1083 OF 2019 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT, VADAKARA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.1083 OF 2019 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT, VADAKARA PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

KAREEM , AGED 41 YEARS S/O KUNJABDULLA, MEETHALE KOYILOTH(H), MAYYANNUR PO, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673542 BY ADV SMT.K.REEHA KHADER RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:

1 ANEESH P P , AGED 41 YEARS S/O BALAN, PATTARECHUTTAPARAMBATH(H), MAYYANNUR ,P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673542

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV SRI.O.T.JABISH PP. SRI. M.P.PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

29.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the 3^rd accused in S.C.No.1083/2019 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara (Trial Court), which has originated from Crime No.19/2018 registered by the Badagara Police Station, Kozhikode alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 323, 324, 308 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 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 first respondent, who has executed Annexure 4 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 first 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 first 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 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,