Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 DR.ARYA.S.K , AGED 29 YEARS D/O SAM, CHAITHRAM, DEN'S LANE, NEAR DENNISON MEMMORIAL CSI CHURCH, MULLUVILA, THIRUPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, PIN - 695001 BY ADV THULASI AMMA S. SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :3: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2025 O R D E R 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 Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :4: 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 offence under Section 307, which is a henious 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 Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :5: 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, petitioners are accused nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1596 of 2024 of Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as C.C.No.5/2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VII, Neyyattinkara. The offences alleged are under Section 85 of BNS and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners seek 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 petitioners, learned counsel defacto complainant/respondent no.2 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :6:
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 issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled and that the defacto complainant is disinterested to continue with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-4, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled. The defacto complainant would also swear that she does not intend to proceed with the prosecution case against the petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. This Court has also perused Annexure-3 settlement agreement executed by the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant, wherein the Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :7: factum of settlement is affirmed. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the 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 satisfied. This court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioners 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. Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :8: In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-2 Final Report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.5/2025 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VII, Neyyatinkara, are hereby quashed. Raj. sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE. Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :9: APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 997/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 Annexure 2 Annexure 3 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO 1596/24 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 1596/24 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ARRIVED BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN OP 1446/24 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT NEYYATTINKARA Annexure 4 THE AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6/1/2025
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 DR.ARYA.S.K , AGED 29 YEARS D/O SAM, CHAITHRAM, DEN'S LANE, NEAR DENNISON MEMMORIAL CSI CHURCH, MULLUVILA, THIRUPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, PIN - 695001 BY ADV THULASI AMMA S. SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :3: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2025 O R D E R 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 Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :4: 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 offence under Section 307, which is a henious 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 Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :5: 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, petitioners are accused nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1596 of 2024 of Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as C.C.No.5/2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VII, Neyyattinkara. The offences alleged are under Section 85 of BNS and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners seek 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 petitioners, learned counsel defacto complainant/respondent no.2 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :6:
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 issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled and that the defacto complainant is disinterested to continue with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-4, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled. The defacto complainant would also swear that she does not intend to proceed with the prosecution case against the petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. This Court has also perused Annexure-3 settlement agreement executed by the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant, wherein the Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :7: factum of settlement is affirmed. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the 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 satisfied. This court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioners 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. Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :8: In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-2 Final Report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.5/2025 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VII, Neyyatinkara, are hereby quashed. Raj. sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE. Crl.MC.No.997 of 2025 :9: APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 997/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 Annexure 2 Annexure 3 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO 1596/24 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 1596/24 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ARRIVED BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN OP 1446/24 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT NEYYATTINKARA Annexure 4 THE AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6/1/2025