The High Court can quash criminal proceedings if the parties amicably settle disputes, especially when the offenses are not grave or heinous.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 901 OF 2026 CRIME NO.1000/2019 OF Kilikolloor Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.794 OF 2021 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM PETITIONER/FOURTH ACCUSED:

NABEEL , AGED 32 YEARS S/O NAZARUDEEN,TKM CPO, NEAR KATTAVILA MOSQUE PEROOR CHERRY, KOTTANKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAMKARA PO, KOLLAM (DIST)-, PIN - 691576 BY ADV SRI.M.RAJESH RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION,KILIKOLLOOR PO, KOLLAM, PIN - 691004

3 ABDUL KALAM, AGED 58 YEARS S/O NAGUR KANI,BASITH MANZIL, MAMOODU CHERRY, KOTTARAMKARA VILLAGE, CHANDANATHOPE PO, KOLLAM (DIST)-, PIN - 691014 BY ADV SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR OTHER PRESENT:

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SMT SEETHA STHIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the fourth accused in S.C. No.794/2021 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam (‘Trial Court’, for short) which has originated from Crime No. 1000/2019 registered by the Kilikolloor Police Station, Kollam District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332 and 308 read with Section 149 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 registration of the crime has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the third respondent, who has executed Annexure 2 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 third 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 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 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 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 t