The Kerala High Court recently exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to quash criminal proceedings against two accused after they settled their dispute with the complainant. This judgment reaffirms the principle that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences can be quashed to secure the ends of justice, particularly when parties arrive at a bona fide settlement and continuation of prosecution serves no fruitful purpose.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case originated from Crime No. 515/2025, registered by the Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging offences under Sections 115(2), 110, 118(1), and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The dispute involved the petitioners (accused) and the second respondent (de facto complainant), who later settled their differences amicably.
Key Facts
29.05.2025: First Information Report (FIR) registered under Crime No. 515/2025 at Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha
30.06.2025: Final Report filed before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha, initiating S.C. No. 1123/2025
17.01.2026: The second respondent (complainant) executed an affidavit affirming settlement with the petitioners
The first petitioner had prior criminal antecedents, including involvement in Crime Nos. 372/2023 and 775/2024 and proceedings under Section 15(1)(b) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAPA)
Procedural History
29.05.2025: FIR registered under BNS
30.06.2025: Final Report filed, initiating S.C. No. 1123/2025 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha
10.07.2026: Petitioners filed Crl. M.C. No. 4026 of 2026 before the Kerala High Court seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 528 BNSS
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners/Accused: Contended that the dispute had been amicably settled, and continuation of proceedings would burden the judicial process without advancing justice
Second Respondent/Complainant: Affirmed settlement through affidavit and expressed no objection to quashing proceedings
State/First Respondent: While acknowledging the settlement, highlighted the first petitioner's criminal antecedents but noted the Investigating Officer's confirmation of a bona fide settlement
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of Annexure 1 (FIR), Annexure 2 (Final Report), and all further proceedings in S.C. No. 1123/2025 under Section 528 BNSS.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings for offences under BNS when the parties had arrived at a bona fide settlement, despite the accused having prior criminal antecedents.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
Relied on precedents such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, and Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. to argue that the High Court can quash proceedings for non-heinous offences when parties settle disputes amicably
Contended that continuation of proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would merely burden the judicial process
Emphasized that the second respondent had no subsisting grievance and wished to withdraw the complaint
For the Respondents
State: While acknowledging the settlement, pointed out the first petitioner's criminal antecedents, including prior crimes and proceedings under KAAPA. However, the Investigating Officer confirmed the settlement was bona fide
Second Respondent: Supported the petitioners' plea, affirming the settlement and expressing no objection to quashing proceedings
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS and the principles laid down in landmark judgments. It observed:
"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... 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."
The Court applied the following legal tests:
Nature of Offences: The alleged offences were not heinous or of a serious nature, and no public interest or societal concern was involved
Bona Fide Settlement: The parties had genuinely resolved their dispute, and the complainant had no objection to quashing proceedings
Judicial Economy: Continuation of proceedings would burden the judicial process without advancing justice
Restorative Justice: Quashing proceedings would promote harmony between the parties and restore peace
The Court distinguished cases involving heinous offences or public interest concerns, where quashing may not be appropriate despite settlement. However, in this case, the Court found that the settlement met the criteria for invoking inherent powers.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the Crl. M.C. and quashed all further proceedings in S.C. No. 1123/2025 against the petitioners. Specifically, it quashed:
Annexure 1 (FIR in Crime No. 515/2025)
Annexure 2 (Final Report)
All further proceedings in S.C. No. 1123/2025 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlement Can Trump Criminal Antecedents
Courts may quash proceedings even if the accused has prior criminal antecedents, provided the settlement is bona fide and the offences are not heinous
The Investigating Officer's confirmation of a genuine settlement carries significant weight in such cases
Limits of Inherent Powers Under BNSS
Section 528 BNSS empowers High Courts to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice, but this power is not absolute
Courts must consider the nature of offences, public interest, and the likelihood of conviction before exercising inherent powers
Heinous offences or those involving societal concerns may not be quashed despite settlement
Practical Takeaways for Practitioners
For Defence Counsel: Always explore settlement options, particularly in cases involving non-heinous offences. A bona fide settlement can lead to quashing of proceedings under Section 528 BNSS
For Prosecution: While opposing quashing, highlight any criminal antecedents or public interest concerns to persuade the court against exercising inherent powers
For Complainants: If inclined to settle, execute an affidavit affirming the settlement and expressing no objection to quashing proceedings to strengthen the case for quashing
For Courts: Ensure that settlements are genuine and not coerced, and that quashing serves the ends of justice without undermining public interest
