The court may quash proceedings on the basis of amicable settlement between parties if offences are not grievous and serve no public interest.

ORDER

The petitioner is the fifth accused in S.C. No.

658/2025 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kollam (‘Trial Court’, for short), which has originated from Crime No. 238/2024 registered by the Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 307, 323 and 506 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 respondents 3 and 4, who have executed Annexures 3 and 4 affidavits, affirming the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, 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 specific overt act of committing the offence under Section 307 has been attributed against the first accused. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in the crime in view of Section 149 of the IPC .

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, I find that since the specific overt act of committing the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is attributed against the first accused and the petitioner has been implicated as the accused in the crime on the allegation that he in prosecution of the common intention with the accused persons had committed the above offences, I am satisfied this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, which 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 FIR, Annexure 2 charge sheet in Crime No. 238/2024 of the Eravipuram Police Station and all further proceedings in S.C. No. 658/2025 of the Trial Court, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.