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

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 SALOMARHA. P AGED 19 YEARS D/O ASEES, AKAVALAPPIL (H), ORKKATTERY POST, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673501 BY ADV T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR ADV.E.C.BINEESH – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..2.. O R D E R Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025 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 Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..3.. 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 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.544 of 2024 of Edacherry Police Station, Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..4.. Kozhikode. The offences alleged are under Sections 332(c), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks quashment of the entire proceedings in the above Crime, 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 recorded over the phone, was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant are settled amicably. The instant Crl.M.C was filed with the knowledge and consent of the defacto complainant, wherefore, she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..5.. an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that the complaint stemmed from some misunderstanding. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioner and that they have decided to get married. The defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the case against the petitioner 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. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed.

5. In this case, the learned public prosecutor pointed out that the petitioner/accused had other criminal antecedents. In the circumstances, this Court, by order dated 17.03.2025, directed the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant to be present through video conference so as to assess the genuineness of the settlement. Accordingly, Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..6.. the said person was present and this Court interacted with her. She would state that she was in relationship with the accused and that the attack was pursuant to a misunderstanding. Though, it is true that the incidents alleged in the first information statement have taken place actually, it was submitted that the matter has been completely settled and there is no surviving grievance against the petitioner. She would also state that she is continuing her relationship with the petitioner/accused. Having interacted with her, this Court can only find that the settlement arrived at is genuine, wherefore, the antecedents pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor need not stand in the way of the quashment sought for.

6. 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 Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..7.. 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. This Court also notice that offences under Sections 115(2), 332(c) and 351(2) are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 F.I.R, and all further proceedings in Crime No.544/2024 of Edacherry Police Station, Kozhikode, are hereby quashed. TR Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..8.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1210/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO. 544/2024 ALONG WITH FIS OF EDACHERRY POLICE STATION DATED 20-12-2024 Annexure A2 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 31-01-2025 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 SALOMARHA. P AGED 19 YEARS D/O ASEES, AKAVALAPPIL (H), ORKKATTERY POST, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673501 BY ADV T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR ADV.E.C.BINEESH – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..2.. O R D E R Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025 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 Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..3.. 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 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.544 of 2024 of Edacherry Police Station, Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..4.. Kozhikode. The offences alleged are under Sections 332(c), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks quashment of the entire proceedings in the above Crime, 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 recorded over the phone, was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant are settled amicably. The instant Crl.M.C was filed with the knowledge and consent of the defacto complainant, wherefore, she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..5.. an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that the complaint stemmed from some misunderstanding. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioner and that they have decided to get married. The defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the case against the petitioner 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. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed.

5. In this case, the learned public prosecutor pointed out that the petitioner/accused had other criminal antecedents. In the circumstances, this Court, by order dated 17.03.2025, directed the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant to be present through video conference so as to assess the genuineness of the settlement. Accordingly, Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..6.. the said person was present and this Court interacted with her. She would state that she was in relationship with the accused and that the attack was pursuant to a misunderstanding. Though, it is true that the incidents alleged in the first information statement have taken place actually, it was submitted that the matter has been completely settled and there is no surviving grievance against the petitioner. She would also state that she is continuing her relationship with the petitioner/accused. Having interacted with her, this Court can only find that the settlement arrived at is genuine, wherefore, the antecedents pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor need not stand in the way of the quashment sought for.

6. 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 Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..7.. 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. This Court also notice that offences under Sections 115(2), 332(c) and 351(2) are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 F.I.R, and all further proceedings in Crime No.544/2024 of Edacherry Police Station, Kozhikode, are hereby quashed. TR Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE Crl.M.C.No. 1210 of 2025 ..8.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1210/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO. 544/2024 ALONG WITH FIS OF EDACHERRY POLICE STATION DATED 20-12-2024 Annexure A2 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 31-01-2025 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT