The Kerala High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash criminal proceedings in a case involving offences under Sections 126(2) and 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, after the parties amicably settled their dispute. The Court emphasized that where offences are not grave or heinous, and the complainant has no subsisting grievance, continuation of prosecution would serve no public interest, warranting quashing to secure the ends of justice.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The petitioners, Abdul Sameer Kottakunni (A1), Yoosuf Pallikkunhi Muhamed Kunhi (A2), and Muhammed Kasim P.A (A3), were accused in Crime No. 386/2026 registered by the Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod, alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2) and 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Key Facts
- The dispute arose between the petitioners and the second respondent, Abdul Azeez, regarding a property-related matter.
- The second respondent filed a complaint leading to the registration of the FIR on an unspecified date in 2026.
- The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and all further proceedings.
Procedural History
- 21.07.2026: Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C No. 5813 of 2026) filed before the Kerala High Court.
- The Court admitted the case and heard arguments on the same day.
The Parties' Positions
- The petitioners contended that the dispute had been amicably settled, supported by an affidavit from the second respondent (Annexure-A2) affirming the settlement.
- The second respondent, through counsel, stated that he had no subsisting grievance and no objection to the quashing of proceedings.
- The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, submitted that the Investigating Officer had reported a genuine and bona fide settlement between the parties and had no objection to the quashing of the case.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR in Crime No. 386/2026 and all further proceedings against them, on the ground of amicable settlement.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Kerala High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 126(2) and 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where the parties had amicably settled their dispute and the complainant had no objection.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners' counsel argued that the dispute had been amicably settled, as evidenced by the second respondent's affidavit (Annexure-A2). They relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan [(2019) 5 SCC 688], and Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. [(2025) 4 SCC 78], which permit the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in cases where the offences are not grave or heinous, and the parties have settled their dispute.
For the Respondent
The second respondent, through counsel, stated that he had no subsisting grievance and no objection to the quashing of the proceedings. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, submitted that the Investigating Officer had reported a genuine and bona fide settlement between the parties and had no objection to the quashing of the case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash criminal proceedings. It relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, and Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., which held that in cases where the offences are not grave or heinous, and the parties have amicably settled the dispute, the High Court may invoke its inherent powers to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
"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 observed that the offences alleged in the present case were not heinous or of a serious nature, and no public interest or societal concern was involved. It further noted that the chances of conviction were remote in view of the settlement, and that continuation of the proceedings would merely burden the judicial process without advancing the cause of justice. The settlement would also promote harmony between the parties and restore peace.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C No. 5813 of 2026) and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 386/2026 and all further proceedings against the petitioners. The Court directed that the quashing would promote harmony between the parties and restore peace.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Quashing Is Permitted Where Offences Are Not Heinous
- The judgment reaffirms that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 where the offences are not grave or heinous, and the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
- Practitioners should emphasize the non-heinous nature of the offence and the bona fide settlement to secure quashing.
The Complainant's No-Objection Is Crucial
- The Court highlighted the importance of the complainant's affidavit or statement affirming the settlement and expressing no objection to quashing.
- Counsel should ensure that the complainant's no-objection is clearly documented and placed on record.
Public Interest Must Not Be Compromised
- The judgment underscores that quashing is permissible only where no public interest or societal concern is involved.
- Practitioners must address this aspect in their submissions to avoid rejection on this ground.
