Quashing of proceedings is permissible when offences are not serious and parties have amicably settled the dispute.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 1068 OF 2026 CRIME NO.48/2023 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA IN CC NO.260 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, HARIPAD 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 RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

2 LIJO MATHEW, AGED 43 YEARS S/O MATHEW CHACKO,RESIDING AT LIJO BHAVANAM, P/W XV, KARUVATTA NORTH, KARUVATTA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690517 BY ADVS. SMT.SANDRA MARIA ROBIN SHRI.BASIL BABY CHERUVILLIL SR.PP.SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.260/2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Harippad, which has arisen from Crime No.48/2023 registered by the Harippad Police Station, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 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 2^nd respondent, who has executed Annexure A3 affidavit, affirming the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Senior 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 settlement would promote harmony between the parties and restore peace. Hence, this Co