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) 12489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
ASLAH P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1252 OF 2026|CRIME NO.918/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.MEHARUNNISA NAJEEB
For the Respondents: SMT.SRUTHY SAIJO, SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S

The Court may quash criminal proceedings where offences are not grave, and disputes are amicably settled, aligning with public interest and justice.

Headnote:This judgement revolves around the invocation of inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.918/2024. The Court found that the dispute had been amicably settled between the parties, alleviating any public interest concerns and justifying the quashing of proceedings. The issues framed revolved around the settlement's impact on the prosecution. The Court determined that it could exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash charges since the disputes were not grave or heinous. Ultimately, the petition was allowed with a quashing of the FIR and the proceedings.

Table of Content
1. background of offences and petitioner's plea. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties reached an amicable settlement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court outlines inherent powers and conditions for quashing. (Para 6 , 7)

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 1252 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.918/2024 registered by the Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 316 (2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

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 2nd respondent, who has executed Annexure-A5 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 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-A1 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.918/2024 registered by the Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed. In view of the quashing of the above crime, the jurisdictional Jail Superintendent is directed to forthwith release the petitioner.

H/o. 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