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 XXX XXX YYY YYY XXX XXX BY ADV.AMINA AKTHAR ADV.MAYA M – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No. 2167 of 2025 ..2.. O R D E R Dated this the 28th 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 Crl.M.C.No. 2167 of 2025 ..3.. sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R in a crime alleging offences 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.” Crl.M.C.No. 2167 of 2025 ..4..

2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.203 of 2014 of Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram, now pending as C.C.No.206/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri. The offences alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 354, 354(b), 506(i) and 294(b), read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks quashment of the 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 respondents 2 to 4 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 statements of the defacto complainant and the victims, were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the Crl.M.C.No. 2167 of 2025 ..5.. petitioner, the defacto complainant and victims are settled amicably. The defacto complainant and the victims are disinterested to proceed with the prosecution case, any further and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart, it is noticed that along with this Crl.M.C, affidavits have been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) and victims (respondents 3 & 4) as Annexures-C, D & E, wherein, they would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that the complaint stemmed from misunderstanding. They would also swear that they have no surviving grievance against the petitioner and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The affidavits are sworn to on their own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. Crl.M.C.No. 2167 of 2025 ..6..

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 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 offences under Sections 323 and 506(i) 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-B Final Report, and all further proceedings in Crl.M.C.No. 2167 of 2025 ..7.. C.C.No.206/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri, as against the petitioner are hereby quashed. TR Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE Crl.M.C.No. 2167 of 2025 ..8.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2167/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A Annexure B Annexure C Annexure D Annexure E CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.203/2014 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH EVIDENCE MEMO IN CRIME NO.203/2014 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.02.2025 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.02.2025 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.02.2025