The High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings in non-heinous cases where an amicable settlement has been reached between the parties, provided no public interest or societal concern is involved, to prevent unnecessary burden on the judicial process.

CRL.MC NO. 6004 OF 2026

CRIME NO.667/2025 OF Palakkad Town South Police Station, Palakkad

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1181 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, PALAKKAD

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 6004 of 2026

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

Dated this the 1st day of September, 2026

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1181 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Palakkad Court ('Trial Court', in short), which has originated from Crime No.667 of 2025 registered by the Palakkad Town South Police Station, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126(2) and 115(2) 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 3rd respondent, who has executed Annexure A4 affidavit, affirming the settlement.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, had submitted that the 3rd respondent reported to the Investigating Officer that he is not ready for the settlement. In light of the above submission, this Court on 11.08.2026, directed the 3rd respondent to appear in person today (01.09.2026).

4. Today, the 3rd respondent has appeared before this Court and has stated that he has voluntarily executed Annexure A4 affidavit and has no objection in the proceedings being quashed.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

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 A2 FIR, Annexure A3 final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No.1181 of 2025 of the Trial Court, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.