The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that courts may exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when parties to non-heinous offences reach a genuine settlement, reinforcing that justice must not be sacrificed to rigid procedural formalities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, four individuals accused in Crime No. 1149/2025 registered at Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur, face charges under Sections 137(2), 127(2), 115(2), 61(2)(b), and 117(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The allegations arose from a personal dispute that escalated into a criminal complaint, without any evidence of violence, public disorder, or organized criminal activity.
Procedural History
- 21 September 2025: FIR registered under the above sections
- 24 September 2025: Remand report filed; petitioners remanded to judicial custody
- 25 September 2025: Second respondent executed an affidavit affirming settlement with petitioners
- February 2026: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of proceedings
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, arguing that the dispute had been fully resolved through mutual agreement, with no lingering animosity or public interest at stake.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits quashing of criminal proceedings arising from non-heinous offences after a bona fide settlement between parties, even in the absence of statutory compulsion.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, and Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. to argue that the Supreme Court has consistently held that where offences are not grave, public interest is absent, and parties have settled, quashing serves the ends of justice. They emphasized that the settlement was voluntary, documented in an affidavit, and endorsed by the Investigating Officer.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor, on instructions, confirmed that the Investigating Officer had verified the settlement as genuine and bona fide. The State did not oppose the quashing, acknowledging that prosecution would serve no useful purpose and that no societal harm would result from termination of proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a structured review of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. It emphasized that the power to quash is not a substitute for trial but a tool to prevent abuse of process.
"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 found that the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cited were primarily related to minor public nuisance, unauthorized assembly, and procedural violations - not crimes involving moral turpitude, sexual violence, terrorism, or organized crime. The absence of any public interest element, combined with the affidavit of the complainant and the Investigating Officer’s confirmation, satisfied the threshold for quashing.
The Court further noted that continuing the case would impose undue hardship on the accused, waste judicial resources, and undermine the social value of reconciliation. It held that the ends of justice are better served by recognizing voluntary settlement in non-serious disputes, consistent with the spirit of restorative justice embedded in modern criminal procedure.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 may be invoked to quash proceedings in non-heinous offences where a genuine, voluntary settlement exists and no public interest is involved. The FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlement Can Terminate Non-Heinous Prosecutions
- Practitioners may now confidently move for quashing under Section 528 BNS where offences are non-violent, non-economic, and lack public interest
- Affidavits of settlement, supported by Investigating Officer reports, significantly strengthen such applications
- Courts are likely to favor settlement over mechanical prosecution in minor offences under Chapter 11 of BNS
Burden of Proof Shifts to Opposing Party to Show Public Harm
- The State must now affirmatively demonstrate public interest or societal harm to oppose quashing
- Mere existence of an FIR is insufficient to block settlement-based quashing
- Courts will examine the nature of the offence, not just its technical classification under statute
Settlement Must Be Genuine and Documented
- Oral assurances are inadequate; a sworn affidavit from the complainant is now essential
- Investigating Officer’s confirmation of settlement adds evidentiary weight
- Courts will scrutinize timing - settlements after arrest or charge sheet filing are still valid if bona fide
