Inherent powers under Section 528 can quash proceedings when disputes are amicably settled, but not all offences can be quashed if they concern state interest.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 254/2025 registered by the Peruvamboor Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 281 and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (‘ BNS ’, for brevity) and Sections 134 (A) and 134(B) of the Motor Vehicle Act , 1988 (‘Act’, for short).

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 second respondent, who has executed Annexure-III 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 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 party 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 although the petitioner and the second respondent have arrived at a genuine and bona fide settlement in respect to the offences under the BNS , the offences under Sections 134 (A) and 134(B) of the Act cannot be quashed since they are offences against the State. Therefore, the State has no objection in the offences under the being quashed. But the petitioner may be directed to contest/plead guilty of the offences under the Act before the Trial Court. I find the above submission to be reasonable and justifiable.

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 the 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 against the petitioner under BNS 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. Therefore, I am inclined to partly allow the Crl.M.C. by quashing Annexure-I FIR in respect of the offences under the . However, I am not inclined to quash the offences under the Act; that is, the offences against the State.

In the result, the Crl. M.C. is partly allowed. Accordingly, Annexure-I FIR with respect to the offences under Sections 281 and 125(b) of the BNS is hereby quashed. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Trial Court and either contest/plead guilty to the offences under the Act. If the petitioner pleads guilty of the offences under the Act, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.