The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings if the offences are not heinous, no public interest is involved, and the parties have reached a bona fide settlement, as continuing the prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose.

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.389 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III(MOBILE),KANNUR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 31st day of July, 2026

1. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in C.C.No.389/2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III (Mobile), Kannur(Trial Court), which has originated from Crime No.14/2025 registered by the Mayyil Police Station, Kannur alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS).

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 second 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 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 second 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 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 A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 389/2025 of the Trial Court, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.