Court held it may quash proceedings for non-heinous offenses when disputes are amicably settled, but not for habitual offenders.

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 42 OF 2026 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026 ORDER The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in CC No.156/2020 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta, which has originated from Crime No.34/2020 registered by the Elavumthitta Police Station, Pathanamthitta, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 451, 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 filing of the complaint has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent, who has executed Annexure-A3 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 submit 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 1^st petitioner is a habitual o he is involved in 16 other crimes of similar nature. Therefore, proceedings in respect of the 1^st petitioner may not be quashed.

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. However, in Laxmi Narayanan’s case (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has held that in case of a habitual offender, this Court shall not exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS .

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. Nonetheless, since the 1^st petitioner is a habitual offender, I am not inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS in his favour.

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is partly allowed.

Accordingly, Annexures A1 Final Report, A2 FIR and all further proceedings in CC No.156/2020 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta, as against the petitioners 2 and 3, are hereby quashed. But, the proceedings in respect of the 1^st petitio