The court can quash criminal proceedings when there is a bona fide settlement between parties in non-heinous cases, preventing unnecessary prosecution and promoting harmony.

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. 1409 OF 2026 CRIME NO.955/2024 OF Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.981 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PERINTHALMANNA PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

MINHAJ ABDULLA, AGED 22 YEARS S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, MYLAMPPADATH HOUSE, PALLIPARAMBU, PANG P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679338 BY ADVS.

SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SHRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN SMT.ANJU DONY RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

2 AFSAN P, AGED 21 YEARS S/O.ABDUL SALAM, PARAYANKUZHI HOUSE, CHOVVA ROAD, KADUNGAPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322 BY ADV SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC OTHER PRESENT:

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK 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 first accused in C.C.

No.981/2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perinthalmanna (‘Trial Court’, for short) which has originated from Crime No. 955/2024 registered by the Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2) and 118(1) read with Section 3 (5) 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, who 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 cause of justice