The court has the inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings where offences are not serious and parties have amicably settled, promoting judicial efficiency.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 8TH MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 11649 OF 2025 CRIME NO.601/2022 OF Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.798 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL PETITIONER/S:

MOHAMMED RISWAN, AGED 22 YEARS PALLATH HOUSE, EDAVANAKAD P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -

682502 BY ADVS.

SHRI.MOHAMMED MUBARAK A.I.

SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM SHRI.RAMSHAD K.R.

SHRI.ARTHUR B. GEORGE SHRI.E.B.THAJUDDEEN SHRI.IRSHAD V.P.

SHRI.MUHAMMED RISWAN K.A.

SHRI.MIDHUN MOHAN SHRI.ABDUL SAMAD P.B.

RESPONDENT/S:

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

2 SHINE KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS VALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHANGAD, EDAVANAKAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682502 BY ADV SMT. FARHA BEEGUM K.M.

OTHER PRESENT:

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

28.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 11649 OF 2025 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in CC No.798/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Njarakkal, which has originated from Crime No.601/2022 registered by the Narakal Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b) and 506(1)

read with Section 34 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 filing of the complaint has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, who has executed Annexure A2 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 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 w