This was a landmark judgement by the Kerala High Court while holding that the cases regarding the charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Codecan also be quashed, especially when the parties concerned to the case have reached amicable settlement. In a nutshell, this judgment recognizes the amicable resolution, even in serious charges of crimes, to the extent of the parties' settlement agreeing with the justice and the interest of the public. Case Summary The case arose when the accused in an attempt-to-murder case filed a plea to quash the proceedings of the case on the grounds of compromise reached with the victim. The accused pleaded that proceeding with the trial would not serve any purpose as the parties had mutually resolved their differences. However, the prosecution opposed the plea that Section 307 IPC is a serious offence involving public interest, and mere settlement between parties cannot override the need for accountability and deterrence. Observation of the Court As was stated in judgment delivered by Hon'ble Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, Section 307 of IPC deals with serious offences. Yet, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC, it has been provided that High Court has inherent powers to quash the proceedings in interest of justice but requires careful consideration as to whether it is a serious offence against society and the circumstances of settling. The court further held: "Criminal jurisprudence recognizes the value of reconciliation and resolution in certain cases. While heinous crimes cannot be compromised, cases where the offense stems from personal disputes, and the settlement does not harm societal interest, can be considered for quashing." Conditions for Quashing The Kerala High Court enumerated specific factors to be considered when determining whether an attempt-to-murder case based on settlement should be quashed: Whether the case involves personal animosity or an impulsive clash. Whether the settlement between the parties is voluntary and genuine. Whether the public interest in the case is not compelling enough to be prosecuted. Whether quashing the case will promote harmony in society rather than jeopardize the law. Consequences of the Judgment This judgment clears up how settlements come into the scenario in criminal charges that involve major charges, which again affirms a judiciary's promise of delivering reconciliation while not jeopardizing public security or justice. The judgment also recognizes the evolution nature of criminal law, when judges attempt to balance interest that the individual has to offer against the interest the people of society have, therefore by allowing quashing for special cases, it enabled a way out from quarrelsome disputes for their possible resolution. All theses decision is sure going to be landmark ones for similar future proceedings all around the country, and importantly settle disputes that could well otherwise be personal rather than communal.