1. Petition to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 294(b), 367, 342, 323, 324, 377 r/w 34 IPC. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 62162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J
Albert Joseph – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 7696 OF 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Stephy K Regi
For the Respondents: Shyam Raj K.B., Githesh R.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Stephy K Regi
For the Respondents: Shyam Raj K.B., Githesh R.
The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when parties have reached a bona fide settlement, provided the offences are not heinous, no public interest is involved, and continuation of the trial would be futile.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Proceedings - Quashing on ground of settlement - High Court may invoke its inherent powers to quash proceedings if the offences are not grave or heinous and the parties have amicably settled the dispute to secure the ends of justice. (Para 6, 7)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of an amicable settlement between the petitioner and the complainant.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks quashing due to amicable settlement; respondent affirms no objection; State supports settlement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Court finds offences not grave; settlement genuine; no public interest; remote conviction chances; burden on process. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. High Court may quash non-serious cases on settlement to secure justice; continuation serves no purpose. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Can inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS be used to quash criminal proceedings due to settlement?
Yes, for non-grave offences where parties settle amicably, High Court can quash proceedings to secure ends of justice. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. What factors are considered when quashing proceedings based on settlement?
Nature of offence, public interest, settlement genuineness, remote conviction chances, and burden on judicial process. (Para 7 )
7. Can the State's consent influence the quashing of criminal proceedings?
Yes, the State having no objection supports the court's decision to quash proceedings upon settlement. (Para 5 , 7 )
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2026
The petitioner is the 1st accused in L.P. No.6/2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, (Forest Offences), Thodupuzha ( Trial Court), which has arisen from Crime No.1761/2021 registered by the Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 367, 342, 323, 324 and 377 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
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 third respondent, who has executed Annexure A3 affidavit, affirming the settlement.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the third 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 third respondent has no subsisting grievance and does not wish to pursue the prosecution, and has no objection to the 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 Criminal Miscellaneous case being allowed.
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 A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in L.P. No.6/2025 of the Trial Court, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
