1. Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings under various penal sections, including attempt to murder, based on a settlement between parties. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68373
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Ananthu Raj – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.MC NO.5932 OF 2026|CRIME NO.310/2018|SC NO.1213 OF 2025
Important Points
Criminal proceedings, including those under Section 307 IPC, can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS upon a bona fide settlement between the parties, provided no specific overt act is attributed to the accused and trial would be a futile exercise.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashment of Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Quashment of Criminal Proceedings - Amicable Settlement - Where the dispute leading to the registration of a crime is settled between the accused and the victim, and the victim expresses no grievance, the Court may invoke its inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent wastage of judicial time and money, especially when the chances of conviction are bleak. (Para 6)
(B) Section 307 IPC - Specific Overt Act - Even in cases involving serious charges like attempt to murder, if no specific overt act is attributed to the accused and other primary accused have been acquitted, the court may allow quashment based on a bona fide settlement. (Para 4, 6)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed following an amicable settlement with the victim despite charges under Section 307 IPC.
(B) Section 307 IPC - Specific Overt Act - Even in cases involving serious charges like attempt to murder, if no specific overt act is attributed to the accused and other primary accused have been acquitted, the court may allow quashment based on a bona fide settlement. (Para 4, 6)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed following an amicable settlement with the victim despite charges under Section 307 IPC.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Priyadarsan Thampi
For the Respondents: Bhavana Velayudhan, Devadas H. Mallan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Priyadarsan Thampi
For the Respondents: Bhavana Velayudhan, Devadas H. Mallan
Table of Contents
2. Parties contended that a genuine settlement exists, the victim has no grievances, and other co-accused were previously acquitted. (Para 4 )
3. The court observed that the settlement is bona fide, the petitioner faces no other criminal charges, no specific overt act is alleged, and trial would serve no purpose. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Proceedings can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS when parties have amicably settled disputes, especially where conviction likelihood is negligible and continuance of trial is wasteful. (Para 6 )
5. Criminal proceedings are quashed against the petitioner in view of the amicable settlement reached between the parties. (Para 6 )
6. Can criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences like Section 307 IPC be quashed based on a private settlement?
Yes. When the settlement is genuine, no specific overt act is attributed to the accused, and the likelihood of conviction is bleak, the court may quash proceedings to prevent misuse of the legal process and wastage of time. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. What is the threshold for the court to invoke its power of quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS?
The court exercises this power when it is satisfied that the settlement is bona fide, the victim has no subsisting grievance, and continuing the trial would serve no purposeful outcome. (Para 6 )
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2026 The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.1213/2025 (the 9th accused in original S.C.No.266/ 2020) on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha, for alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294 (b), 120(B), 341, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. This case arose out of Crime No.310/2018 of Ambalapuzha Police Station.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing this Crl.M.C. under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of all the proceedings in the afore case on the ground that the dispute, which led to the registration of the crime, has been settled between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the party respondent in one voice submitted that the disputes between the parties, which led to the registration of the afore crime, have been settled between them and 2nd respondent/victim has no subsisting grievance and does not wish to pursue the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the allegation levelled against the petitioner is under Section 307 IPC, there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner and he is not involved in any other crimes. He further submitted that the other accused including the 1st accused stood trial and they were acquitted as per Annexure A3 judgment. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also submitted that the 2nd respondent has sworn an affidavit stating the afore facts.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, vouches for the settlement reached between the parties and submitted that it is a genuine and bona fide settlement. He further submitted that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and there is no specific overt act alleged against him in the crime.
6. On going through the materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, I am of the view that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have amicably settled the disputes which led to the registration of the crime. It is true that the offence alleged against petitioner is under Section 307 IPC. But it is to be taken note that no specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner and the other accused who were actually involved in the crime, have been acquitted, as per Annexure A3 Judgment. Further, I am of the view that if the petitioner is put to trial, no purpose will be served since, the chances of the petitioner getting convicted are bleak and it will only result in wastage of time and money. Hence, I find that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS in favour of the petitioner. Ergo, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.310/2018 of Ambalapuzha Police Station and all further proceedings in S.C.No.1213/2025 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
