Court can quash criminal proceedings if offences are not grave and parties settle their disputes amicably.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 1241 OF 2026 CRIME NO.699/2025 OF Chandera Police Station, Kasargod AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.80 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

MUHAMMED SHAMMAS U.M, AGED 19 YEARS S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ U.M, SHAHABAS MANZIL, KAVUNTHALA, PADANA VILLAGE, KASARGOD., PIN - 671312 BY ADVS.

SRI.P.K.SUBHASH SMT.JENI JOHN RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

2 MUHAMMED SIYAF, REP. BY HIS FATHER SAKKARIYA A.C AGED 15 YEARS S/O. SAKKARIYA A.C, VADAKKE KOLAYATH HOUSE, PADNE P.O, HOSDURG, KASARGOD., PIN - 671312 BY ADV SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU OTHER PRESENT:

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SMT.SEETHA S THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.P. No. 80/2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class magistrate-I, Hosdurg, (‘Committal Court’, for short) which has originated from Crime No. 699/2025 registered by the Chandera Police Station, Kasargode District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2) and 115(2) 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 registration of the crime has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the second respondent, whose father has executed Annexure A3 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 second respondent.

4. The learned counsel on either side submits that, with the intervention of relatives and well-wishers, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably. The party 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 the 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