Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to quash proceedings in non-grave offences, especially if the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in S.C No.137/2020 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has originated from Crime No.478/2007, registered by the Sreekaryam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 109, 341, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (‘ IPC ’, in short).

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 respondents 2 and 3, who have executed Annexures D and E affidavits, affirming the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submit that with the intervention of well-wishers and friends, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. The other accused in the crime have been honourably acquitted as per Annexure-B judgment. The specific overt act for allegedly committing the offence under Section 307 is attributed against the 1st accused, who has also been acquitted. The respondents 2 and

3 have no objection in the entire proceedings being quashed.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. [ (2025) KHC 6131 ] in support of the contention that, there is no legal prohibition in this Court quashing a criminal proceedings involving an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code /109 BNS. All that this Court has to look into is the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the weapon used and the nature of injuries suffered by the victim. The learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the accident-cum-wound certificate to substantiate that the respondents 2 and 3 had only suffered lacerated wounds. He also contended that, other than for the bare allegation that the petitioner had assisted the 1^st accused to commit the offence, there is nothing that can be substantiated by the prosecution in this regard. Therefore, this Court may quash the entire proceedings as against the petitioner.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the specific overt act of committing the offence under Section 307 was attributed against the 1^st accused, who has been acquitted as per Annexure B judgment. Likewise, he made available the accident-cum-wound certificate of the injured persons to substantiate that they are only suffered lacerated injuries, which was also inflicted by the 1st accused. Nonetheless, the Investigating Officer has reported that the parties have arrived at a genuine and bona fide settlement. He does not seriously dispute the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3. He concedes to the fact that the respondent 2 and 3 have not suffered any serious injuries, which is corroborated by the accident-cum-wound certificate.

7. 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‘s case [supra], and in a host of judicial pronouncements. It