The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings if the alleged offences are not heinous, no public interest is involved, and the parties have reached a genuine and bona fide amicable settlement.

OTHER PRESENT: SR.PP.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKOOL

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. 6885 of 2026

Dated this the 1st day of September, 2026

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in CrimeNo.395/2026, registered by the Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 110 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita , 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 respondents 2 to 4, who have executed Annexures B to D affidavits, affirming the settlement.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.

The learned counsel on either side submit that, with the intervention of relatives and well-wishers, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably. The respondents 2 to 4 have no subsisting grievance and do not wish to pursue the prosecution, and have no objection to the proceedings being quashed.

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-A FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.395/2026, registered by the Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode, as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.