SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9676

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
CHELLAMUTHU RAJENDRAN @ SELVAM AND R PRABHAKARAN @ PANDI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 956 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ELDHO BABY
For the Respondents: ANANTHU P. SANTHOSH, M.P.PRASANTH

The court can invoke inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings when parties have amicably settled disputes, particularly for non-serious offences.

Headnote:The petitioners challenged the proceedings under Sections 118(1), 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, citing amicable settlement. The court, after considering the facts and circumstances, determined that the offences were not serious and quashing proceedings was appropriate for justice. The court allowed the petition on these grounds. The main issue revolved around the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings due to a settlement. The court reasoned that given the nature of the offences and a genuine resolution of disputes, continuation would not serve justice. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed, quashing the FIR and all proceedings against the petitioners.

Table of Content
1. amicable settlement leads to quashing of criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2)
2. counsel submissions indicate no ongoing grievances. (Para 3 , 4)
3. settlement not serious; judicial burden alleviated. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

O R D E R

Dated this the 11th day of February, 2026 The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.891/2025 registered by the Rajakkadu Police Station, Idukki, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 118 (1), 115(2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

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 2 and 3, who have executed Annexures 2 and 3 affidavits, affirming the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

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 respondents 2 and 3 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 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-1 First Information Report and all further proceedings in Crime No.891/2025 of the Rajakkadu Police Station, Idukki, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top