The High Court · 2025

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: MUHAMMED AMEER CH AGED 29 YEARS S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, CHETHIKKOTTIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMURRY, MUTHUTHALA PO, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679303 BY ADV SHIYON BIJU RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 RHTHULYA B NAIR AGED 27 YEARS D/O BANU PRAKASH SOUPARNIKA VEETTIL CHAL AZHIKKOD PO KANNUR, PIN - 670009 Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 2 :- BY ADVS. JOMY JOHNY SANAL P. RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 3 :- 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 4 :- 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 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.2642 of 2017 of Ernakulam Central Police Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 5 :- Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.1058/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. As per the Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections 294(b) and 509 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/2nd 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 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 out of the Court and that the defacto complainant is disinterested to pursue the Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 6 :- prosecution case, any further. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant as Annexure-2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled out of the Court and that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. Moreover, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the quashment sought for can be allowed in view of the settlement arrived at. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide.

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 Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 7 :- 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 509 is 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-1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1058/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 8 :- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1720/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 2642/17 ALONG WITH FIR AND FIS ANNEXURE 2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT NO 2

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: MUHAMMED AMEER CH AGED 29 YEARS S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, CHETHIKKOTTIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMURRY, MUTHUTHALA PO, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679303 BY ADV SHIYON BIJU RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 RHTHULYA B NAIR AGED 27 YEARS D/O BANU PRAKASH SOUPARNIKA VEETTIL CHAL AZHIKKOD PO KANNUR, PIN - 670009 Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 2 :- BY ADVS. JOMY JOHNY SANAL P. RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 3 :- 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 4 :- 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 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.2642 of 2017 of Ernakulam Central Police Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 5 :- Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.1058/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. As per the Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections 294(b) and 509 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/2nd 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 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 out of the Court and that the defacto complainant is disinterested to pursue the Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 6 :- prosecution case, any further. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant as Annexure-2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled out of the Court and that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. Moreover, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the quashment sought for can be allowed in view of the settlement arrived at. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide.

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 Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 7 :- 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 509 is 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-1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1058/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2025 -: 8 :- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1720/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 2642/17 ALONG WITH FIR AND FIS ANNEXURE 2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT NO 2