1. The petitioner is the original third accused in Crime No. 413/2017 registered by the Valapattanam Police Station, Kannur District, as against the four accused persons, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. As the petitioner and the second accused in the crime were absconding, the case against them was split up,  and the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thalassery (‘Trial Court’, for short), by Annexure A3 judgment, acquitted the accused 1 and 4 in the case. Subsequently, the petitioner and the second accused surrendered before the Trial Court and the case against them is renumbered as S.C. No. 681/2025.

2. The petitioner has stated in the Crl.M.C that the dispute that led to the registration of the crime has been amicably  settled  between  him  and  the  second respondent, who has executed Annexure A4 affidavit. Likewise, as the accused 1 and 4 have been acquitted by Annexure A3 judgment, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. Moreover, the grievous injuries were allegedly inflicted by the accused 1 and 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with the fourth accused, had assaulted the second respondent. However, there are no corresponding injuries on the second respondent. Hence, this Court may quash the entire proceedings as against the petitioner in view of the amicable settlement between him and the second respondent.

3. The substratum of the prosecution case is that, on 29.03.2017, at around 21:00 hours, the accused 1 to 4 and three other identifiable persons, in prosecution of their common intention, had formed an unlawful assembly with an intent to murder CW1. Consequently, they restrained the CW1 and CW2; the first accused hit him on his face, and the second accused stabbed him on his waist and back with a knife. The accused 3 and 4 and other identifiable persons hit CW1 with an iron rod, and the first accused took the knife from the second accused and stabbed CW1. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the accident register cum wound certificate dated 29.03.2017 of the second respondent and submitted that the major injuries suffered by the second respondent are stab wounds, which were inflicted by the accused 1 and 2. The only overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he, along with the fourth accused and three other identifiable persons, hit the second respondent with an iron rod. However, there are no corresponding injuries on the second respondent irrespective of the said allegation. In any given case, by Annexure A3 judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused 1 and 4. In fact, the fourth accused is at par with the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Naushey Ali and others v. State of U.P. and Another [(2025) 4 SCC 78], this Court may quash the proceedings as against the petitioner against whom the offence under Section 307 is not attracted.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the Investigating Officer has reported that the parties have arrived at a genuine and bona fide settlement. He does not seriously dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. He concedes to the fact that the 2nd respondent has not suffered any serious injury at the hands of the petitioner, which is corroborated by the accident register cum-wound certificate.

7. 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, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688], Naushey Ali‘s case [supra], and in a host of judicial pronouncements. 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.

8. On an overall consideration of the facts, the materials on record, and the law on the point, and particularly after going through the treatment record of the 2nd respondent and also the findings in Annexure A3 judgment in favour of the accused 1 and 4, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, particularly since there is no public interest or element of societal concern involved; the chances of conviction are remote in view of the settlement; and the continuation of the proceedings would merely burden the judicial process without advancing the cause of justice. Furthermore, the settlement would promote harmony between the parties and restore peace. Hence, this Court is persuaded to  hold that this is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

                  In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed. Accordingly, Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No. 413/2017 of the Valapatanam Police Station, and all further proceedings in S.C. No. 681/2025 of the Trial Court, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.