Judges 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 KUNJAMMA PAPPAN AGED 60 YEARS W/O PAPPAN, AYYANAKUZHIYIL, THIRUVALLA, KAVIYOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689582 STATION HOUSE OFFICER THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 689101 BY ADVS. SRI. E.C. BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.NANMA.B.B THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 - 2 - C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 24th 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], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of sanctioning invocation of Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 - 3 - 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 law.”

2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.186/2024 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta. As per the final report, the offences Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 - 4 - alleged are under Sections 294(b), 506, 326, 511 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,

2007. The petitioner seeks 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 petitioner, 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 defacto complainant is disinterested to proceed with the case any more. Furthermore, she would state that it is the petitioner, who is taking care of the defacto complainant (mother of the petitioner) and meeting her daily requirements, wherefore, she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 - 5 - affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled out of the Court and that she is residing with the petitioner comfortably. Moreover, the petitioner is presently maintaining the defacto complainant and that she has no further grievances against him. The defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. 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.

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 Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 - 6 - 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 offence under Section 506 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-A1 F.I.R. in Crime no.186/2024 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE SKP Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 - 7 - APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6414/2024 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A1 HE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.186/ 2024 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. ANNEXURE-A2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 KUNJAMMA PAPPAN AGED 60 YEARS W/O PAPPAN, AYYANAKUZHIYIL, THIRUVALLA, KAVIYOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689582 STATION HOUSE OFFICER THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 689101 BY ADVS. SRI. E.C. BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.NANMA.B.B THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 - 2 - C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 24th 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], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of sanctioning invocation of Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 - 3 - 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 law.”

2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.186/2024 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta. As per the final report, the offences Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 - 4 - alleged are under Sections 294(b), 506, 326, 511 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,

2007. The petitioner seeks 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 petitioner, 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 defacto complainant is disinterested to proceed with the case any more. Furthermore, she would state that it is the petitioner, who is taking care of the defacto complainant (mother of the petitioner) and meeting her daily requirements, wherefore, she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 - 5 - affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled out of the Court and that she is residing with the petitioner comfortably. Moreover, the petitioner is presently maintaining the defacto complainant and that she has no further grievances against him. The defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. 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.

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 Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 - 6 - 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 offence under Section 506 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-A1 F.I.R. in Crime no.186/2024 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE SKP Crl.M.C.No.6414 of 2024 - 7 - APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6414/2024 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A1 HE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.186/ 2024 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. ANNEXURE-A2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE