2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15458
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
SATHEESH KUMAR R – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1808 OF 2026|CRIME NO.1356/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SRI.SREEJITH SREENATH
For the Respondents: SMT.K.V.RAJESWARI
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings if parties settle disputes amicably and the offences are not grave.
Headnote:The petitioner, the second accused in a case, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings related to an amicably settled crime under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court found that the offence was not heinous and allowed quashing of the proceedings as it would serve no fruitful purpose. The Court reiterated that continuation of prosecution does not advance justice when the parties resolved their disputes amicably. The Crl. M.C. is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case and settlement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel submissions on amicable resolution. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's rationale for quashing proceedings. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.
1356/2025 registered by the Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 316 (2) and 318(4) 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 third respondent, who has executed Annexure C 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 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 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, Annexure B FIR in Crime No.1356/2025 of the Adoor Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to it, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-