Point of Law: It is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report in C.C.No.2929/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Attingal on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. Altogether, there are four accused. The petitioners are the accused Nos.2 and 4. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 120B, 420 r/w 34 of the IPC.

4. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused made believe the de facto complainant that they were in possession of a memory card containing porn videos of his daughter and induced him to part with Rs.3,00,000/-on 14/7/2012 on the assurance that the said memory card would be handed over to him, but cheated the de facto complainant without handing over the memory card or returning the amount.

5. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by him is produced as Annexure-A2.

6. I have heard Sri.P.Anoop, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Chandra Babu, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.

7. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2nd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the accused Nos.2 and 4 with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused Nos.2 and 4 further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the dispute with the accused Nos.2 and 4 was amicably settled.

8. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

9. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the 2nd respondent and the accused Nos.2 and 4 alone who are the petitioners. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that it is not impermissible to quash the FIR qua some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In Sreejith v. State of Kerala and Another (Crl.M.C.No.3343/2021 dated 10/8/2021), this Court quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C.

10. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that as the dispute between the p