The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash criminal proceedings, including those under Section 307 IPC, if the parties have reached an amicable settlement and the nature of the offence and injuries is not grave.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No.8103 of 2024

-----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 20th day of August, 2026

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused 2 to 7 in SC No.1101/2024 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-II), Palakkad, which has originated from Crime No.124/2024 registered by the Alathur Police Station, Palakkad, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 506(ii) and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The substratum of the prosecution case is that, on 28.01.2024, the accused had gone to a local bar, where the defacto complainant was working as a Manager. Since there was some delay in serving the food to the accused Nos.2 and 7, they called accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the spot. Later, the accused Nos.1 to 6 caused issues in the bar. When the defacto complainant asked the accused to get out of the bar compound, he was slapped by accused Nos.1 and

Further, the 1st accused shot the defacto complainant with an air pistol and he suffered grievous injuries. The other accused persons assisted the 1st accused to commit the above offences.

The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’, in short), to quash all further proceedings in the above case. It is asserted that the dispute that led to the filing of the complaint has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the respondents 2 to 7, who have executed Annexures III to VIII affidavits, affirming the settlement.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 7.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 7 submit that with the intervention of well-wishers and friends, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. The respondents 2 to 7 do not desire to prosecute the case against the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners 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 in 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 petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet and submits that the specific overt act is attributed against the 1st accused who had used the air pistol. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners for causing injuries to the defacto complainant and the other injured. Therefore, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not attracted against the petitioners. Hence, this Court may quash the entire proceedings as against the petitioners.

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. He does not seriously dispute the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents 2 to 7. He concedes to the fact that the respondents 2 to 7 have not suffered any serious injury, which is corroborated by the accident-cum-wound certificate.

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 jud