The Court may quash criminal proceedings when parties reach a mutual settlement, provided the offences are not grave, to promote justice and harmony.

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. 1334 OF 2026 CRIME NO.355/2023 OF Cherpulassery Police Station, Palakkad AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.774 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, OTTAPALAM PETITIONER/S:

ASHIK AGED 28 YEARS S/O MOIDEENKUTTY, KULUKKAMPARA HOUSE, KECHERIKKUNNU, CHERPPULASSERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679503 BY ADVS.

SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN SHRI.ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN SHRI.LIBIN VARGHESE RESPONDENT/S:

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

2 ASHARAF AGED 42 YEARS S/O ALAVI, PENGATTIRY HOUSE, PENGATTIRY, NELLAYA POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679335 BY ADV SHRI.ABRAHAM MATHAN OTHER PRESENT:

SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

20.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No. 1334 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the 6^th accused in SC No.774/2025 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Ottapalam, which has originated from Crime No.355/2023 registered by the Cherpulassery Police Station, Palakkad, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 341, 323, 325, 308, 506(1) and 294(b) 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 filing of the complaint has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, who has executed Annexure-3 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 2^nd respondent.

4. The learned counsel on either side submit 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 p