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) 12936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
KUNHAMAD M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1378 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.3/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RAHUL SASI, SMT.NEETHU PREM, SMT.P.ARDRA MENON, SHRI.ANANDHU S.
For the Respondents: SHRI.MIDU DEV PREM

Inherent powers may be invoked to quash criminal proceedings when parties amicably settle and the offenses are not grave.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The alleged offences fall under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Facts of the Case: The petitioners, accused in CC No.1306/2025, invoked inherent jurisdiction for quashing proceedings due to amicable settlement among parties.

Findings of Court:
Court acknowledged settlement and lack of grave offenses.

Issues: The court considered whether continuation of the prosecution served any purpose.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized on settling disputes amicably to promote justice, referencing various Supreme Court decisions.

Result: The Crl. M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings.

Table of Content
1. inherent jurisdiction invoked for quashing proceedings. (Para 1 , 2)
2. amicable settlement acknowledged by all parties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. conditions under which quashing is permissible are established. (Para 6 , 7)

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 1378 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026 ORDER The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in CC No.1306/2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg, which has originated from Crime No.3/2025, registered by the Melparamba Police Station, Kasaragod, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita , 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 petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3, who have executed Annexures A3 and A4 affidavits, affirming the settlement.

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

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 respondents 2 and 3 have no subsisting grievance and do not wish to pursue the prosecution, and have 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, Annexures-A1 FIR, A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in CC No.1306/2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg, 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