The court may quash criminal proceedings based on amicable settlements in minor offences, emphasizing the need to secure justice and prevent abuse of process.

ORDER :

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

Crl.M.C. No.3485 of 2024

This Crl.M.C. has been filed by the accused in C.C. No.151 of 2024 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case arose on a complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent before the said court. The petitioner filed this Crl.M.C. seeking to quash the final report and further proceedings in C.C. No.151 of 2024, saying that an amicably settlement was arrived at between himself and the 2^nd respondent. An affidavit of the 2^nd respondent averring that he sorted out the dispute with the petitioner and has no further grievance in the matter has been placed on record.

Crl.M.C. No.10021 of 2024

2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.426 of 2024 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 294(b) of the IPC. A crime was registered in the matter based on a complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent before the said court. This petition has been filed stating that the matter involved has been settled between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. An affidavit of the 3^rd respondent in the said terms has been placed on record.

Crl.M.C. No.3485 and 10021 of 2024

3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective petitioners and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor made available for my perusal statements of the investigating officer along with statements of the respective defacto complainant. In the said statements, the defacto complainants maintained that they did not have any further grievance in the matter, as the dispute had been sorted out.

5. Both cases are related to an incident that occurred on 22.07.2023 at about 11.00 a.m. Both sides alleged that the rival party had voluntarily attacked. The offences involved are not so serious or affecting the safety or security of the public. The parties are relatives. When they amicably settled the disputes, that certainly would bring peace among them. In the interest of both parties, it is appropriate to stop the proceedings without driving them to a detailed trial.

6. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and others [(2012) 10 SCC 303] laid down the parameters for invoking Section 482 of the Code for accepting the settlement in cases involving non compoundable offences in paragraph No.57 which reads thus:

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide