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 ABHIJITH V.S, AGED 18 YEARS S/O. SATHEESH, VATHISSERY HOUSE, GANESHAMANGALAM EAST, VADANAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-, PIN - 680614 SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) ADV.RAJITHA V.K. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C No.11049/2024 -2- C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ======================= Crl.M.C No.11049 of 2024 ======================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 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 the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R in a crime alleging Crl.M.C No.11049/2024 -3- 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 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.869 of 2019 of Vadanappally Police Station, Thrissur, now pending as C.C.No.239/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. The offences alleged are under Sections 342, 323 and 324 of the Crl.M.C No.11049/2024 -4- Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The petitioner seeks 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 petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent no.2 and the learned Senior 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 issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant are settled. The defacto complainant and his father are disinterested to pursue the prosecution case, any further. The defacto complainant – a minor at the time of registration of the crime, who had now attained majority - would further state that he has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2nd respondent Crl.M.C No.11049/2024 -5- herein) as Annexure-A2, wherein he would unequivocally state that he has no further complaints against his mother, who is the petitioner herein, and that the complaint emanated from some misunderstanding. The defacto complainant would also swear that he has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that the affidavit is sworn to on his own volition. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the 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 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 Crl.M.C No.11049/2024 -6- 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 323, 324 and 342 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-A1 Final report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.239/2020 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Chavakkad, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE Crl.M.C No.11049/2024 -7- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 11049/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 869/2019 OF VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR WITH FIS