The High Court · 2025

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682013 Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 2 2 3 JAFFAR KHAN AGED 32 YEARS S/O. BAVA RESIDING AT CHIRAPPULY HOUSE, RAYAONPURAM (P.O), KANJIRAKKADU, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683543 JISNA MAITHEEN AGED 31 YEARS W/O JAFFARKHAN RESIDING AT CHIRAPPULY HOUSE, KANJIRAKKADU, RAYONPURAM (P.O) PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683543 BY ADVS. JOEL JIMMY E.C. BINEESH 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.9154 of 2024 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 the Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 4 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 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, petitioners are accused nos.3 and 5 in Crime No.1311 of 2022 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.687/2022 before the Judicial Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 5 First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor. As per Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 451, 294(b) and 506, read with Section 149 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 respondent nos.2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

4. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statements of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, as also, the victim/3rd respondent. The said direction was complied and their statements were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners, the defacto complainant/2nd respondent and the victim/3rd respondent, are settled and that they no longer intend to continue with the Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 6 prosecution case, as against the petitioners. They would further state 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, affidavits have been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) and 3rd respondent/victim as Annexures-A3 and A4 respectively, wherein they would unequivocally state that the defacto complainant and 3rd respondent have no complaints against the petitioners and that they have no subsisting grievance against them. The defacto complainant and the 3rd respondent would also swear that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and that the affidavits are sworn to on their free will. Moreover, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 would submit that the relief sought for herein be allowed, in view of the settlement between the parties. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 7

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 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 the offences under Sections 451 and 506 are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties.

6. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 F.I.R, Annexure-A2 Final Report, and all further Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 8 proceedings in C.C.No.687/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor, as against the petitioners (accused nos.3 and 5), are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 9 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9154/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.1311/2022 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION DATED 13.10.2022 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 26.10.2022 IN C.C.NO. 687/2022 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.1311/2022 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 10.10.2024 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/INJURED DATED 10.10.2024

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682013 Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 2 2 3 JAFFAR KHAN AGED 32 YEARS S/O. BAVA RESIDING AT CHIRAPPULY HOUSE, RAYAONPURAM (P.O), KANJIRAKKADU, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683543 JISNA MAITHEEN AGED 31 YEARS W/O JAFFARKHAN RESIDING AT CHIRAPPULY HOUSE, KANJIRAKKADU, RAYONPURAM (P.O) PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683543 BY ADVS. JOEL JIMMY E.C. BINEESH 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.9154 of 2024 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 the Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 4 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 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, petitioners are accused nos.3 and 5 in Crime No.1311 of 2022 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.687/2022 before the Judicial Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 5 First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor. As per Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 451, 294(b) and 506, read with Section 149 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 respondent nos.2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

4. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statements of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, as also, the victim/3rd respondent. The said direction was complied and their statements were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners, the defacto complainant/2nd respondent and the victim/3rd respondent, are settled and that they no longer intend to continue with the Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 6 prosecution case, as against the petitioners. They would further state 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, affidavits have been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) and 3rd respondent/victim as Annexures-A3 and A4 respectively, wherein they would unequivocally state that the defacto complainant and 3rd respondent have no complaints against the petitioners and that they have no subsisting grievance against them. The defacto complainant and the 3rd respondent would also swear that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and that the affidavits are sworn to on their free will. Moreover, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 would submit that the relief sought for herein be allowed, in view of the settlement between the parties. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 7

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 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 the offences under Sections 451 and 506 are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties.

6. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 F.I.R, Annexure-A2 Final Report, and all further Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 8 proceedings in C.C.No.687/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor, as against the petitioners (accused nos.3 and 5), are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.9154 of 2024 9 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9154/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.1311/2022 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION DATED 13.10.2022 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 26.10.2022 IN C.C.NO. 687/2022 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.1311/2022 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 10.10.2024 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/INJURED DATED 10.10.2024