The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings based on a bona fide settlement between parties, provided the offences are not heinous, no public interest is involved, and the prosecution would otherwise be a burden on the judicial process.

CNR : KLHC011647652024

2026/KER/65762

2026:KER:65762

CRIME NO.1442/2021 OF Velloor Police Station, Kottayam

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.160 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VAIKOM

OTHER PRESENT:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DEVADAS H. MALLAN

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS,J.

Crl.M.C.No. 10672 of 2024

Dated this the 21st day of August, 2026

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.160 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vaikom ('Trial Court', in short), which has originated from Crime No.1442 of 2021 registered by the Velloor Police Station, Kottayam alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the proceedings on the assertion that even if the allegations in the complaint, FIR and the final report are taken on their face value and in its entirety, the same would not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner.

When the petition was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submit that the dispute that led to the registration of the crime has been amicably settled between the parties and the 1st respondent and has filed Annexure-J affidavit, stating that she has no objection in the proceedings being quashed.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent.

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.

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.

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, Annexure C Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 160 of 2022 of the Trial Court, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.