SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
Easwaran S., J.
Sidharth P – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor and ors. – Respondents
CRL.MC No. 3024 of 2025
Decided On : 29-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C.K.Sreejith, E.C.Biju
For the Respondent: Mary Ranzom Louiz, Adv M P Prasanth - PP

The court can quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences if a genuine and voluntary settlement exists, preventing abuse of process.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - The petitioner, accused in a criminal case, reached an out-of-court settlement with the de facto complainant, who affirmed the settlement's genuineness through an affidavit - The Public Prosecutor confirmed the affidavit's authenticity - The court noted that while Section 420 is compoundable, the other sections are not; however, proceeding with the trial would serve no useful purpose as conviction was unlikely - The court exercised its inherent powers to quash the proceedings. (Paras 2-7)

(B) Inherent Powers - The court emphasized that it can quash non-compoundable offences if the settlement is genuine and voluntary, as established in Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab. (Paras 4-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced charges under various sections of the IPC, and the de facto complainant settled the dispute amicably, leading to the request for quashing the proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court found that continuing the trial would be an abuse of process, given the genuine settlement and lack of conviction possibility.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court should quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on a genuine settlement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it can quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences if the settlement is genuine and voluntary, emphasizing the importance of not allowing the trial to proceed when it would serve no purpose.

Result: Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in Crime No 191 of 2024 are quashed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court can quash non-compoundable offences if there is a genuine and voluntary settlement, to prevent abuse of process (!) (!) (!) - Offence under Section 420 IPC is considered compoundable, while offences under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC are not compoundable, yet quashing is possible where settlement is genuine and no likelihood of conviction (!) - The decision relies on Narinder Singh v State of Punjab, Gian Singh v State of Punjab, and related precedents establishing inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in such contexts (!) (!) - The de facto complainant’s affidavit confirming the amicable settlement and its genuineness, validated by the Public Prosecutor, supports quashing (!) (!) - The court quashed all further proceedings in Crime No 191 of 2024, Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur, pursuant to Crl.M.C allowed (!)

What is the authority and scope of the court to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in the presence of a genuine settlement for non-compoundable offences?

What are the precedents and conditions under which a non-compoundable offence can be quashed due to a genuine and voluntary settlement?

What is the outcome of the case regarding quashing of proceedings in Crime No 191 of 2024 and the corresponding statutory basis?


ORDER :

Easwaran S., J.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.191 of 2024 of Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Pending trial of the offences, the petitioner as well as the de facto complainant have entered into a settlement out of court and settled the disputes. The de facto complainant accordingly has sworn to an affidavit stating that the matter has been amicably settled and that he has no objection in this Court quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 28.03.2025, the learned Public Prosecutor was required to obtain instructions on the veracity of the affidavit filed by the de facto complainant. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor reported that the affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant is genuine and that the issues have been settled between the parties.

4. The guidelines as regards the circumstances warranting exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure 1973, for quashing offences which are non compoundable were succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. Still further, in Gian Singh VS State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court affirmed the view expressed by five bench of the Punjab High Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769 wherein it was held that even offences against human body could be compounded if the settlement entered is genuine and voluntary.

5. In Madan Mohan Abbot Vs State of Punjab (2008)4 SCC 582, the Supreme Court once again reiterated that the offence involving personal injuries should be allowed to be compounded keeping in mind the fact that even on completion of trial there will be no possibility of conviction.

6. In this case this court finds that offence under Section 420 is compoundable, whereas the offences under Section 465, 468 and 471 of IPC are not compoundable. However, taking note of the submission of the Learned Counsel for the parties and the Public Prosecutor, and also the affidavit filed on behalf of the de facto complainant, and also since the de facto complainant have given statement before the Station House officer that the affidavit sworn to by them are voluntary and genuine, this Court is of the considered view that there will be no useful purpose served in proceeding with the trial of the case inasmuch as there is no possibility of the trial ending in conviction of the accused and that the entire process will be abuse of process of the court.

7. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that it is a fit case where the case against the petitioner requires to be quashed, in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in Crime No 191 of 2024 of Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur is hereby quashed.

Crl. M.C ordered accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top