BY AD vs M.T.SURESHKUMAR

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 2 - 2 3 4 JAINAMMA PHILIPOSE AGED 56 YEARS W/O K C PHILIPOSE, KAPPAMAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ZIONPURAM, MALLAPPALLY WEST P O , MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689585 PHILIPOSE AGED 58 YEARS S/O CHACKO SCARIA, KAPPAMAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ZIONPURAM, MALLAPPALLY WEST P O , MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689585 SKARIAH AGED 68 YEARS S/O CHACKO SKARIAH , KAPPAMAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ZIONPURAM, MALLAPPALLY WEST P O , MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ., PIN - 689585 BY ADVS. SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JOSE ANTONY FOR R2 AND R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 3 - C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 14th 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 Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 4 - 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 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 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, petitioners are accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1058/2019 of Keezhvaipur Police Station, Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 5 - Pathanamthitta, now pending as C.C.No.1702/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. As per the final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 294(b), 323 and 341 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.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and 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 statements of the defacto complainant and 3rd respondent (injured) were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that respondent nos.2 and 3 (injured) are no longer interested to continue with the case and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 6 - noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioners. The defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. This Court also perused affidavits sworn to by respondents 3 and 4 (CW2 and CW3), wherein they would vouch the factum of settlement. 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 respondent nos.2 and 3 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 petitioners Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 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 offences under Sections 323 and 341 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-A2 Final Report in Crime no.1058/2019 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1702/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla, are hereby quashed. SKP Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 8 - APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7300/2024 PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 ANNEXURE A2 ANNEXURE A3 ANNEXURE A4 ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1058 OF 2019 OF KEEZHVAYPUR POLICE STATION DATED 4- 9-2019 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1058 OF 2019 DATED 20-9-2019 PENDING AS CC NO. 1702 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF JFCM, THIRUVALLA THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 17-8-2024 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 17-8-2024 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 17-8-2024 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 2 - 2 3 4 JAINAMMA PHILIPOSE AGED 56 YEARS W/O K C PHILIPOSE, KAPPAMAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ZIONPURAM, MALLAPPALLY WEST P O , MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689585 PHILIPOSE AGED 58 YEARS S/O CHACKO SCARIA, KAPPAMAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ZIONPURAM, MALLAPPALLY WEST P O , MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689585 SKARIAH AGED 68 YEARS S/O CHACKO SKARIAH , KAPPAMAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ZIONPURAM, MALLAPPALLY WEST P O , MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ., PIN - 689585 BY ADVS. SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JOSE ANTONY FOR R2 AND R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 3 - C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 14th 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 Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 4 - 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 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 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, petitioners are accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1058/2019 of Keezhvaipur Police Station, Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 5 - Pathanamthitta, now pending as C.C.No.1702/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. As per the final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 294(b), 323 and 341 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.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and 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 statements of the defacto complainant and 3rd respondent (injured) were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that respondent nos.2 and 3 (injured) are no longer interested to continue with the case and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 6 - noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioners. The defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. This Court also perused affidavits sworn to by respondents 3 and 4 (CW2 and CW3), wherein they would vouch the factum of settlement. 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 respondent nos.2 and 3 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 petitioners Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 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 offences under Sections 323 and 341 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-A2 Final Report in Crime no.1058/2019 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1702/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla, are hereby quashed. SKP Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 - 8 - APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7300/2024 PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 ANNEXURE A2 ANNEXURE A3 ANNEXURE A4 ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1058 OF 2019 OF KEEZHVAYPUR POLICE STATION DATED 4- 9-2019 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1058 OF 2019 DATED 20-9-2019 PENDING AS CC NO. 1702 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF JFCM, THIRUVALLA THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 17-8-2024 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 17-8-2024 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 17-8-2024 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE