Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1033 (KER)

Vibitha K. G, W/o Renjith v. State of Kerala

2025-04-11

C.JAYACHANDRAN

body2025
ORDER : A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [ (2007) 4 CTC 769 ], framed broad guidelines as regards quashment of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code in respect of offences which are not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code. One among the guidelines was that the offences against human body, other than murder and culpable homicide, may be permitted to be compounded, when the court is in a position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. These guidelines were quoted with approval by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ]. Similarly in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [ (2014) 6 SCC 466 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R in a crime alleging offences under Section 307, which is a henious and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [ (2008) 4 SCC 582 ] as regards quashment in respect of offences like 379, 406, 409, 418, etc., the relevant findings of which are extracted here below: “6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” 2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.345 of 2019 of Cherpu Police Station, Thrissur, which was pending as C.C.No.1013 of 2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur and has now been transferred to the Long Pending Register. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.345 of 2019 of Cherpu Police Station, Thrissur, which was pending as C.C.No.1013 of 2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur and has now been transferred to the Long Pending Register. As per the FIR, the offences alleged are under Sections 341, 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks quashment of entire proceedings in the above Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent no.2, and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 4. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The said direction was complied and the statement was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the defacto complainant is no longer interested to proceed with the case and has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2 nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that she does not intend to continue with the prosecution case, any further. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the case against the petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Moreover, learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that the relief sought for herein be allowed, in view of the settlement between the parties. 5. In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in Narinder Singh (supra), Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), are fully satisfied. This court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioner will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. This Court also notice that the offences under Sections 323 and 341 are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. 6. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in crime no.345/2019, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1013/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, thrissur, which has now been transferred to the Long Pending Register, are hereby quashed.