BY AD vs SAIJO HASSAN

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691506 Crl.M.C.No.1902 of 2025 -: 2 :- 3 G. S. NANDANA KRISHNAN AGED 25 YEARS D/O. SUNILA KUMARI, CKRA 91 B, CHENCHERI LANE, MANNANTHALA, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695015 BY ADVS. B.SABITHA (DESOM) E.C. BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.1902 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.1902 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.862 of 2022 of Kottarakkara Police Station, Crl.M.C.No.1902 of 2025 -: 5 :- Kollam, now pending as C.C.No.136/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottarakkara. 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 Calender 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 of the defacto complainant/3rd respondent was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the defacto complainant is disinterested to proceed with the prosecution case against the petitioner and that she and her family have no objection Crl.M.C.No.1902 of 2025 -: 6 :- in quashing the criminal case against the petitioner. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant as Annexure-3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled out of the Court and that the defacto complainant does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioner any more. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no further 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 volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. Moreover, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/R3 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 Crl.M.C.No.1902 of 2025 -: 7 :- 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 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.

6. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.136/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottarakkara, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.1902 of 2025 -: 8 :- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1902/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 862/2022 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, DATED 13.04.2022 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED AS CC NO. 136/2023 DATED 09.08.2022 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, KOTTARAKARA ANNEXURE 3 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.02.2025