The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that courts may exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings when parties to a non-heinous offence reach a genuine settlement, emphasizing that justice is not served by mechanical prosecution where no public interest remains.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Vishnu and Sachu Kumar, were accused in Crime No. 947/2025 registered at Mannanchery Police Station for offences under Sections 118(2), 115(2), and 126(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations arose from a personal dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent, Sarath Chandran, reportedly involving threats and intimidation.
Procedural History
- 15 December 2025: FIR registered under the aforementioned provisions
- 12 January 2026: Second respondent executed an affidavit affirming amicable settlement with petitioners
- 30 January 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 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 when the parties have reached a bona fide settlement in cases involving non-heinous offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners’ counsel relied on Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process. They submitted that the settlement was voluntary, documented in an affidavit, and endorsed by the Investigating Officer. They argued that continuing prosecution would violate the spirit of Section 320 CrPC (now mirrored in BNS) and undermine the constitutional value of reconciliation.
For the Respondent/State
The State, through the Public Prosecutor, did not oppose the petition. On instructions, the Investigating Officer confirmed the settlement was genuine and without coercion. The State conceded that no public interest or societal harm was involved, and that prosecution would serve no useful purpose.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the settled jurisprudence from the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, and Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., which collectively establish that inherent powers may be invoked to quash proceedings where offences are not grave, settlement is bona fide, and continuation would be an abuse of process.
"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 found that the alleged offences under Sections 118, 115, and 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - pertaining to intimidation, wrongful confinement, and insult - are not inherently violent or socially disruptive. No evidence suggested organized crime, public disorder, or victim coercion. The affidavit of the complainant, corroborated by the Investigating Officer, demonstrated genuine reconciliation. The Court emphasized that judicial resources must not be wasted on cases where the victim has no grievance and the accused has no prior record.
The Court further noted that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, while replacing the IPC, retains the underlying principle that criminal law should serve societal harmony, not merely punishment. Quashing in such cases aligns with Article 21’s guarantee of dignity and the evolving doctrine of restorative justice.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 may be exercised to quash proceedings in non-heinous cases where a bona fide settlement exists. The FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlement Can Terminate Prosecution in Non-Heinous Cases
- Practitioners must now assess whether the alleged offence falls within the category of non-heinous, non-public interest crimes before filing quashing petitions
- Affidavits of settlement must be detailed, voluntary, and corroborated by police or neutral witnesses to withstand scrutiny
- Courts will no longer treat settlement as irrelevant in non-cognizable or compoundable offences under BNS
Police Reports on Settlement Carry Weight
- Investigating Officer’s confirmation of a genuine settlement is now a decisive factor in quashing applications
- Lawyers should seek written statements from investigating officers early in the process to strengthen petitions
- Absence of objection from the State, coupled with police endorsement, significantly increases chances of success
Judicial Economy Over Mechanical Prosecution
- Courts are now explicitly prioritizing efficient use of judicial resources over automatic prosecution
- This judgment reinforces that prosecution is not a right of the State but a duty to be exercised only when public interest demands it
- Practitioners should cite Gian Singh and Naushey Ali as binding precedents in all settlement-based quashing applications under BNS
