Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ARYA BAIJU AGED 24 YEARS D/O BAIJU, AARACHERI HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY WEST P. O., VAZHAPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686103 BY ADV NEETHU S. SRI. E.C. BINEESH (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 3 C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 25th day of March, 2025 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 CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 4 sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R. in a crime alleging offence under Section 307, which is a heinous and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme 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 herebelow: “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 accused CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 5 in Crime No.2014/2019 of Changanacherry Police Station, Kottayam, now pending as C.C.No.4891/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanacherry. As per the final report the offence alleged is under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar 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/3rd respondent 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 disputes have been settled and that the petitioner has tendered apology to the defacto complainant, wherefore, the defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart, CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 6 it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that she does not intend to proceed with the prosecution case against the petitioner, any further and that the complaint stemmed from some mistake. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioner and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed.

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 CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 7 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. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 F.I.R., Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.2014/2019 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.4891/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanacherry, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 750/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 22/08/2019 IN CRIME NO. 2014/2019 OF CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 03/10/2019 IN C.C. NO. 4891/2019 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHANGANACHERRY. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/01/2025 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ARYA BAIJU AGED 24 YEARS D/O BAIJU, AARACHERI HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY WEST P. O., VAZHAPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686103 BY ADV NEETHU S. SRI. E.C. BINEESH (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 3 C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 25th day of March, 2025 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 CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 4 sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R. in a crime alleging offence under Section 307, which is a heinous and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme 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 herebelow: “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 accused CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 5 in Crime No.2014/2019 of Changanacherry Police Station, Kottayam, now pending as C.C.No.4891/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanacherry. As per the final report the offence alleged is under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar 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/3rd respondent 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 disputes have been settled and that the petitioner has tendered apology to the defacto complainant, wherefore, the defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart, CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 6 it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that she does not intend to proceed with the prosecution case against the petitioner, any further and that the complaint stemmed from some mistake. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioner and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed.

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 CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 7 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. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 F.I.R., Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.2014/2019 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.4891/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanacherry, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE CRL.MC NO. 750 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 750/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 22/08/2019 IN CRIME NO. 2014/2019 OF CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 03/10/2019 IN C.C. NO. 4891/2019 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHANGANACHERRY. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/01/2025 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.