The court determined that inherent powers to quash proceedings are limited by an accused's criminal antecedents, as affirmed in several Supreme Court judgments.

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. 9238 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1154/2023 OF Manimala Police Station, Kottayam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.203 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOTTAYAM / II ADDITIONAL MACT/ADDL.RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-IV, KOTTAYAM PETITIONER/S:

REGIMON @ MAHI REGI, AGED 53 YEARS S/O SHIVADASAN NAIR,PIRIYANICKAL HOUSE, KULATHNKAL AMBALAM BHAGAM, MANIMALA P.O,VELLAVOOR VILLAGE, CHANGANCHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686543 BY ADVS.

SMT.PREEJA V.P.

SHRI.JOLLY JAMES SRI.V.P.PRASANTH RESPONDENT/S:

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

2 RADHAMANI, AGED 57 YEARS W/O SURENDRAN NAIR,KUMBALATHUVADAKKETHIL HOUSE, ARAYANJILIMANNUBHAGAM,EDAKADATHI P.O, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -

686510 BY ADV SRI.GEORGE BRISTON E.B.

OTHER PRESENT:

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:

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 9238 OF 2025 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.203/2024 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kottayam, which has originated from Crime No.1154/2023 registered by the Manimala Police Station, Kottayam alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections

294(b), 451 and 307 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 C affidavit, affirming the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, with the intervention of relatives and well-wishers, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably, and 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 petitioner is a history sheeter. He is involved in five crimes including for committing an offence under the NDPS Act. Going by the law laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] , this Court may not exercise its inherent powers and quash the proceedings since the petitioner has antecedents.

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 [supra], 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. In Laxmi Narayan’s case (supra) th