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) 12934

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
JOSE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1355 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN, SMT.M.SANTHI, SMT.NIKITHA ANN VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SMT.THEERTHA NAIR A.P.

The High Court may quash criminal proceedings if the disputes are amicably settled and do not involve grave offences.

Headnote:The petitioners, accused in SC No.1068/2021 arising from Crime No.577/2018, invoked the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings due to amicable settlement. The Court found no public interest or societal concern, and deemed it appropriate to exercise inherent powers based on Supreme Court precedents. The Criminal Miscellaneous case was allowed, quashing all proceedings against the petitioners.

Table of Content
1. petitioners invoked inherent jurisdiction for quashing based on settlement. (Para 1 , 2)
2. counsel's submissions indicated settlement and lack of objection to quashing. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's authority and reasoning for quashing based on non-serious offences. (Para 6 , 7)

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 1355 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026 ORDER The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in SC No.1068/2021 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara, which has originated from Crime No.577/2018 registered by the Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and

308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioners have 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 petitioners and the 2nd respondent, who has executed Annexure-A3 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 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, Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in SC No.1068/2021 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

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