Inherent powers of the Court can quash criminal proceedings when disputes are settled amicably, provided offences are not grave.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 10TH MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 11629 OF 2025 CRIME NO.189/2024 OF Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.750 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ADOOR PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

SIMON ALEXANDER MUTHALALY, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. ALEXANDER RESIDING AT AMBANATTU PUTHENVEEDU, PERINGANANDU VILLAGE, PARAKKOOTTAM, MUNDAPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691551 BY ADV SMT. ARUNDHATHI J. NAIR RESPONDENT / PETITIONER : 1 STATE OF KERALA , REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

2 ROSAMMA, AGED 53 YEARS W/O BINOY, RESIDING AT ROSAMMA MANDIRAM, PARUTHIYARA, ODANAVATTOM,VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM RURAL,, PIN - 691512 BY ADVS.

SHRI.BASIL BABY CHERUVILLIL SMT.SANDRA MARIA ROBIN SR.PP.SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

30.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

CRL.MC NO. 11629 OF 2025 ------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.750/2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Adoor, (Trial Court), which has originated from Crime No.189/2024 registered by the Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Sections

420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

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 2^nd respondent, who has executed Annexure 3 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 submits 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 would merely burden the judicial process without advancing the cause of justice. Furthermore, the settl