Settlement between parties can lead to quashing of criminal proceedings if offences are not grave, promoting judicial efficiency.

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 6 in S.C.No.

542/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Ernakulam (‘Trial Court’, for short), which has originated from Crime No. 1815/2017 registered by the Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 342, 395, 308 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code , Section 9 (1)(a)(b) of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act , 2012 and Sections 3 read with Section 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act , 1058

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 respondents 3 and 4, who have executed Annexures A2 and A3 affidavits, affirming the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.

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 respondents have no subsisting grievance and do not wish to pursue the prosecution and have 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 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 jurisdiction.

In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed.

Accordingly, Annexure A1 FIR and Chargesheet in Crime No.1815/2017 of the Kadavanthra Police Station and all further proceedings in S.C. No. 542/2019 of the Trial Court, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-