1. Petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS arising from settlement of non-heinous offences. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 64985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J
M.B. Rajagopalan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 7494 OF 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.J. Unnikrishnan, Renish Raveendran, Antony Nilton Remelo, Anjana P. V., Ann Mariya Johnson
For the Respondents: Devadas H Mallan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.J. Unnikrishnan, Renish Raveendran, Antony Nilton Remelo, Anjana P. V., Ann Mariya Johnson
For the Respondents: Devadas H Mallan
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings based on an amicable settlement between parties if the offences are not heinous, no public interest is involved, and continuation of the trial would serve no fruitful purpose.
Headnote:(A) Inherent Powers of High Court - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Amicable Settlement - Where the offences are not grave or heinous and the parties have settled the dispute, the High Court may invoke its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice and avoid unnecessary burden on the judicial process. (Para 6, 7)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the ground of a bona fide settlement between the defacto complainant and the accused.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute settled amicably; petitioner has no objection to quashing; State confirms bona fide settlement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Offences not grave; no public interest; conviction remote; settlement promotes harmony; exercise inherent powers. (Para 7 )
4. High Court may quash proceedings for non-heinous offences if settlement is genuine and continuation serves no purpose. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings based on settlement between parties?
Yes, if the offences are not grave or heinous and the settlement is genuine and bona fide, to secure ends of justice. (Para 6 , 7 )
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 9TH ASWINA, 1948 CRL.MC NO. 7494 OF 2026 CRIME NO.178/2017 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM IN CC NO.2232 OF 2018 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -
VIII, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
M.B. RAJAGOPALAN AGED 73 YEARS S/O NETTOOR MUKKATH BALAN, SREEBHAVANAM, NO.35/621B, PONNINCHIRA ROAD WEST, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 682024 BY ADVS.
SRI.P.J.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN SHRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO SMT.ANJANA P.V.
SMT.ANN MARIYA JOHNSON RESPONDENT/STATE AND ACCUSED NO.1, 3, 4 AND 6:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 V. GOPINATHAN S/O VELU, VELICHAPPADU, THAYYIL VEETTIL, ASRAMAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
##PAGE2##3 MANOJ S/O MANI, MITHUNAM HOUSE, KARITHALA ROAD ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
4 ANAS S/O ABDUL KHADER, VAZHAVILIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.23/601, KMP ROAD, PALLURUTHY P.O., EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI, PIN - 682006
5 JOSEPH ANTONY HURTIS S/O BASIN HURTIS, PULIYANATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAZARETH, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI, PIN - 682002 BY SRI.DEVADAS H MALLAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
##PAGE3##ORDER
Dated this the 01st day of October, 2026 The petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.2232/2018 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Ernakulam, (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has arisen from Crime No.178/2017 registered by the Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam, as against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with 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 respondents 2 to 5 (accused 1, 3, 4 and 6). The petitioner has executed Annexure-A4 affidavit, affirming the settlement.
##PAGE4##3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5.
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 petitioner 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.
##PAGE5##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 c
