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

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 9th day of September, 2026

ORDER

1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.445/2019 onthe file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad (‘Trial Court’, for short)which has originated from Crime No. 257/2019 registered by the Palakkad Town North Police Station, Palakkad District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 506(1) of theIndian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner has invoked the inherentjurisdiction 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 first respondent, who has executed Annexure 4 affidavit,affirming the settlement.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and thelearned counsel for the first 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 party respondent has no subsisting grievance and does not wish to pursue the prosecution, and has no objection tothe 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 CriminalMiscellaneous case being allowed.

6. The scope and ambit of the inherent powers ofthis Court to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties have been authoritatively laid down by the 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 theprosecution would serve no fruitful purpose.

7. On an overall consideration of the facts andcircumstances 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 itsinherent jurisdiction.

In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed.

Accordingly, Annexure 1 FIR, Annexure 2 final report in Crime No. 257/2019 of the Palakkad Town North Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 445/2019 of the Trial Court, as against the petitioner, are herebyquashed.