Courts may quash proceedings when disputes are amicably settled, especially for non-grave offenses.

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. 1446 OF 2026 CRIME NO.565/2022 OF Kollam East Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1539 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

1 AYID ANZAR , AGED 25 YEARS S/O ANZAR, RAHILA MANZIL, PUTHIYA VEEDU, JONAKAPURAM, BEACH NORTH, PALLITHOTTAM PO, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691006

2 ARIF ANZAR, AGED 21 YEARS S/O ANZAR, RAHILA MANZIL, PUTHIYA VEEDU, JONAKAPURAM, BEACH NORTH, PALLITHOTTAM PO, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691006 BY ADVS.

SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR SRI.NOBEL RAJU SMT.SANDRA SREEKUMAR RESPONDEN T S / S TATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINAN T :

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

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, CHINNAKADA PO, KOLLAM., PIN - 691001

3 SHARAFUDEEN , AGED 58 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAHIM, RESIDING AT TABIYATH MANZIL, PUNNATHALA, THIRUMULLAVARAM PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 691012 BY ADV SRI.SAJU J PANICKER OTHER PRESENT:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI M P PRASANTH 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 petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.

1539/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam (‘Trial Court’, for short), which has originated from Crime No. 565/2022 registered by the Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 294(b), 324 and 506(ii)

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 registration of the crime has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the third 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 third 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 satis