Inherent jurisdiction may be exercised to quash proceedings if disputes are resolved amicably and the offences are not heinous, while considering prior criminal records.

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 132 of 2026 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 ORDER The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in SC No.1809/2024 on the file of the Special Court – Offences Under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Ernakulam, which has originated from Crime No.270/2024 registered by the Kottappady Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 296(b) and 351(3) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act 2015).

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-3 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 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 2^nd petitioner is a habitual o are four other cases registered against him in addition to the present crime. Likewise,- there are one case each registered against the petitioners 1 and 3 in addition to the present crime. In light of the law laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] , this Court may not exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNS to quash the proceedings in respect of the 2^nd petitioner.

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] , Laxmi Narayan’s case (supra), 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, it is succinctly held that in case an accused has antecedents, 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 powers in respect of the petitioners 1 and 3. Nonetheless, since the 2^nd petitioner is a habitual o