BY AD vs G.P.SHINOD

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUSEUM POLICE STATION, MUSEUM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033 KARTHIKA SATHYAN AGED 24 YEARS /O REMA, PUTHENKUDIYIL HOUSE, KAKKANAD POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030 SAFNA AGED 24 YEARS D/O ANSAR BEEGUM, PLANTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THONNAKKAL VILLAGE, PANDALAM POST, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501 ANCHALA NASREEN SUBAIR AGED 23 YEARS D/O SUNITHA SUBAIR, KUZHIIL HOUSE, NEAR MARAMBILLI AVT TEA COMPANY, VAZHAKULAM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686670 BY ADV R.S.ANANDAN SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 :4: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of March, 2025 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 Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 :5: 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 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 Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 :6: 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, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.2057 of 2019 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as C.C.No.5/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/ 3rd respondent and respondent nos.4 and 5 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 records. :7:

5. 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 (3rd respondent herein) and respondents 4 & 5 (victims in the said crime), were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners, the defacto complainant and the victims are settled amicably. They would also state that they have no grievances against the petitioners and that they have 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 (3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-C, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that she has no further grievances against the petitioners. The Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 :8: defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the case against the petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. Annexures-D and E are affidavits sworn to by the respondents 4 and 5, wherein they would also vouch the factum of settlement claimed by the petitioners. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed.

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 petitioners will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 :9: 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 341 and 323 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-A FIR, Annexure-B Final Report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.5/2020 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, are hereby quashed. sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE. Raj. Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 :10: APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4023/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A Annexure B Annexure C Annexure D Annexure E A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO: 2057 OF 2019 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION DATED 6.11.2019 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO: 2057 OF 2019 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION DATED 29.11.2019 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.04.2023 SWORN TO BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT : THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.04.2023 SWORN TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.04.2023 SWORN TO BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUSEUM POLICE STATION, MUSEUM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033 KARTHIKA SATHYAN AGED 24 YEARS /O REMA, PUTHENKUDIYIL HOUSE, KAKKANAD POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030 SAFNA AGED 24 YEARS D/O ANSAR BEEGUM, PLANTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THONNAKKAL VILLAGE, PANDALAM POST, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501 ANCHALA NASREEN SUBAIR AGED 23 YEARS D/O SUNITHA SUBAIR, KUZHIIL HOUSE, NEAR MARAMBILLI AVT TEA COMPANY, VAZHAKULAM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686670 BY ADV R.S.ANANDAN SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 :4: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of March, 2025 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 Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 :5: 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 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 Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 :6: 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, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.2057 of 2019 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as C.C.No.5/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/ 3rd respondent and respondent nos.4 and 5 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 records. :7:

5. 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 (3rd respondent herein) and respondents 4 & 5 (victims in the said crime), were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners, the defacto complainant and the victims are settled amicably. They would also state that they have no grievances against the petitioners and that they have 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 (3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-C, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that she has no further grievances against the petitioners. The Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 :8: defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the case against the petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. Annexures-D and E are affidavits sworn to by the respondents 4 and 5, wherein they would also vouch the factum of settlement claimed by the petitioners. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed.

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 petitioners will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 :9: 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 341 and 323 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-A FIR, Annexure-B Final Report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.5/2020 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, are hereby quashed. sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE. Raj. Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023 :10: APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4023/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A Annexure B Annexure C Annexure D Annexure E A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO: 2057 OF 2019 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION DATED 6.11.2019 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO: 2057 OF 2019 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION DATED 29.11.2019 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.04.2023 SWORN TO BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT : THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.04.2023 SWORN TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.04.2023 SWORN TO BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.