Court can quash criminal proceedings on grounds of settlement if the offences are not serious and continuation serves no purpose.

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. 11401 OF 2025 CRIME NO.288/2022 OF Thalassery Police Station, Kannur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1146 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,TALIPARAMBA PETITIONER/S:

1 MAHITH KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS S/O MAHENDAR PAL, NATIONAL CO ORDINATOR, FASTAG SALES PAN INDIA, FINAXO SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD., WITH ADDRESS FASTAG SALES PAN INDIA, ASHOKA PLAZA, NEAR MAAN SAROVAR PARK, DELHI ROAD, DLF COLONY, ROHTAK, HARYANA, NOW OM NAGAR COLONY, JIND, HARYANA, PIN - 124001

2 ANKIT AGARWAL, AGED 37 YEARS S/O ISHWAR CHAND, NATIONAL CO-ORDINATOR, FASTAG SALES PAN INDIA, FINAXO SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD., PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT SCO 78, 3RD FLOOR, ASHOKA PLAZA, NEAR MAAN SAROVAR PARK, DELHI ROAD, DLF COLONY, ROHTAK, HARYANA – 124001, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H. NO.

1962/5, OLD ANAJ MANDI, ROHTAK, HARYANA BY ADVS.

SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SMT.SHAHINA NOUSHAD SHRI.KRISHNA S. KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT/S:

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

2 MUHAMMED RAHEEZ, AGED 51 YEARS S/O V.K. MUSTHAFA,RESIDING AT SHAJER, PALLOOR, PUDUCHERRY – 673310, PROPRIETOR, M/S HATHIM TRADERS, MAIN ROAD, TELLICHERRY, PIN - 670101 BY ADV SHRI.REUBEN CHARLY OTHER PRESENT:

SR PP SMT SEETHA S 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.11401 OF 2025 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026 ORDER The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.1146/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery (Trial Court), which has originated from Crime No.288/2022 registered by the Thalassery Police Station, Kannur, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 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 A4 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 second 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,