IMPORTANT POINT
Court emphasizes the need for practical resolution in personal disputes, allowing quashment of criminal proceedings when parties reach a genuine and voluntary settlement.

ORDER :

A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court inKulwinder 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 offences 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. Taking into consideration the aforementioned parameters, I shall proceed to consider each case accordingly.

3. These cases arise from the same set of facts. The alleged incident occurred on 28.07.2015, based on the disputes that existed between two factions of the Muslim community, namely, the A.P. and E.K. factions, regarding the conduct and management of Badar-ul-Huda Madrassa. In relation to these facts, four criminal cases were registered by the Parappanangadi Police Station, concerning the incidents that took place on that day between the parties.

4. In Crl.M.C.No.1970/2024, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No. 1025 of 2015 of Parappanangadi Police Station, Malappuram, now pending as S.C.No.300/2017 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Tirur. As per the final report the offences alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 506(ii), 326, 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the statements of the defacto complainant/respondent no.3 and respondent nos. 4 to 19, the injured persons in the above Crime, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and respondents are amicably settled and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. This Court has also perused Annexures-A3 to A19 affidavits sworn to by the respondent nos. 3 to 19, wherein they would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled amicably and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Furthermore, the affidavits are sworn to on their free will.

5. In Crl.M.C.No.2146/2024, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No. 1028 of 2015 of Parappanangadi Police Station, Malappuram, now pending as S.C.No.353/2017 before the District & Sessions Court, Manjeri. As per the final report the offences alleged are under Sections 341, 323, 326, 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the statement of the defacto complainant/respondent no.2, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner