IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings for serious offences if the parties have settled the matter, provided the nature of the crime allows for such quashing.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants are accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C No.7/2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-III (Ad hoc), Manjeri. The offences originally alleged against the appellants as per the final report are punishable under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. On the appearance of the accused, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution and the accused framed the charges for offences under Sections 323, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that on 30.09.1998 at 8.30 a.m, the appellants/accused on account of their enmity voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW4, with such intention and under such circumstances that if they by that act caused the death, they would be guilty of murder. The victim suffered depressed fracture at the left frontal bone in the incident.

4. The Trial Court convicted appellant No.1/accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 307 and 326 of the IPC. The Court convicted appellant Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. The Trial Court found appellant No.1 not guilty of the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. The Trial Court also found accused Nos.2 and 3 not guilty of the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC. The Trial Court sentenced appellant No.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 326 of the IPC. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 were each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 of the IPC.

5. The appellants challenge the conviction and sentence in this Criminal Appeal.

6. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the appellants filed Crl.M.A No.1/2024 under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking to quash all further proceedings consequent to the final report in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

7. I have heard both sides.

8. The victim (PW4) was impleaded as additional respondent No.3. He filed an affidavit stating that the entire disputes between the parties have been settled and he has no grievance against the appellants.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken the statement of the defacto complainant, and it is reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The material placed before the Court shows that the entire dispute between the parties has been settled and the defacto complainant (PW4) has decided not to proceed further. The settlement between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair.

10. In appropriate cases, the High Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves in the cases not falling within the category of serious offences or heinous offences. In Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] on this subject the Apex Court held thus:

“29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under S