1. Petition to quash criminal proceedings arising from a dispute involving minor offences, settled between the parties. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 65126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J
A.K. Mohanan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10599 OF 2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akheela Farzana, V.K. Sidhique, Sajitha Sidhik, Anjala Farhath V.S., Jain Antony
For the Respondents: M. Revikrishnan, Rishab S., Rijo Domy, Hare Krishna
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akheela Farzana, V.K. Sidhique, Sajitha Sidhik, Anjala Farhath V.S., Jain Antony
For the Respondents: M. Revikrishnan, Rishab S., Rijo Domy, Hare Krishna
The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings if the offences are not grave or heinous and the parties have reached a bona fide settlement, ensuring the ends of justice and promoting harmony.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Proceedings - Quashing - Settlement between parties - High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings in cases where offences are not grave or heinous and parties have amicably settled to secure the ends of justice. (Para 6, 7)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings in CC No.569/2021 can be quashed on the ground of an amicable settlement between the petitioner and the private respondents.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Parties submitted that the dispute was amicably settled; respondents had no objection to quashing proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Offences were not heinous or serious; no public interest involved; settlement rendered conviction remote and continuation futile. (Para 7 )
4. High Court may quash non-serious criminal proceedings on genuine settlement to secure ends of justice, per Supreme Court precedents. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Under what circumstances can a High Court quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement between parties?
When offences are not grave or heinous, parties have genuinely settled, and continuing prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose or burden the judicial process. (Para 6 , 7 )
CRIME NO.296/2021 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.569 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.S.DIAS, J.---------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.10599 of 2024 -----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of October, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in CC No.569/2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Angamaly (‘Trial Court’), which has originated from Crime No.296/2021 registered by the Nedumbassery Airport Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
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 filing of the complaint has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 as per the Memorandum of Settlement Agreement executed between the parties before the High Court Mediation Centre on 05.06.2026.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the respondents 5 and 6.
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 5 and 6 have no subsisting grievance and do not wish to pursue the prosecution, and have 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, Annexures A1 FIR, A3 Final Report and all further proceedings in CC No.569/2021 of the Trial Court, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
