✦ High Court of India · 03 Mar 2025

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

Case Details High Court of India · 03 Mar 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
03 Mar 2025
Bench
C JAYACHANDRAN
Length
1,061 words

Cited in this judgment

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 MOLLY AGED 65 YEARS, W/O JOHNSON, BLOCK NO.22, STAR HOMES, EF-3, CHATHARI, NADAMA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301 BY ADV P.M.AFSAL MOHAMED SRI. SANAL P RAJ (PP) CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 3 C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.1500 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 3rd 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], CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 4 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 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 CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 5 law.”

2. In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.655/2024 of Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam. As per the FIR, the offences alleged are under Sections 351(2), 296(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The petitioners seek quashment of 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 petitioners, 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 issues between the petitioners and the defacto CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 6 complainant are settled and that the defacto complainant is disinterested to proceed with the prosecution case, any further. The defacto complainant has no objection in quashing 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- 2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled out of the Court and that the complaint emanated from some mistake. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioners and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 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 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 7

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. This Court also notice that the offence under Section 351(2) is 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-1 F.I.R. in Crime No.655/2024 of Hill Palace CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 8 Police Station, Ernakulam, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 9 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1500/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 655 OF 2024 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION , DATED 20/8/2024 Annexure 2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE- FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 03.02.2025

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 MOLLY AGED 65 YEARS, W/O JOHNSON, BLOCK NO.22, STAR HOMES, EF-3, CHATHARI, NADAMA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301 BY ADV P.M.AFSAL MOHAMED SRI. SANAL P RAJ (PP) CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 3 C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.1500 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 3rd 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], CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 4 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 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 CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 5 law.”

2. In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.655/2024 of Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam. As per the FIR, the offences alleged are under Sections 351(2), 296(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The petitioners seek quashment of 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 petitioners, 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 issues between the petitioners and the defacto CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 6 complainant are settled and that the defacto complainant is disinterested to proceed with the prosecution case, any further. The defacto complainant has no objection in quashing 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- 2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled out of the Court and that the complaint emanated from some mistake. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioners and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 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 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 7

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. This Court also notice that the offence under Section 351(2) is 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-1 F.I.R. in Crime No.655/2024 of Hill Palace CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 8 Police Station, Ernakulam, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025 9 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1500/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 655 OF 2024 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION , DATED 20/8/2024 Annexure 2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE- FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 03.02.2025

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments