The court emphasized the acceptance of voluntary settlements in personal disputes, allowing quashment of criminal proceedings under Section 482 when further prosecution would be an abuse of process.

ORDER :

A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder 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 Court 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 here below:

“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. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1854 of 2021 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta, now pending as C.C.No.512 of 2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Adoor. As per the Final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The petitioner seeks quashment of the entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel for respondents 3 & 4, and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

4. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The said direction was complied with and the statements of the defacto complainant/3^rd respondent and injured/4^th respondent were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the disputes have been settled amicably and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. They would also state that the case against the 2^nd accused in the above crime has already been quashed. Annexure-A3 is the copy of the Order quashing the case against the 2^nd accused. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, affidavits have been sworn to by the defacto complainant (3^rd respondent herein) and respondent 4 (injured) as Annexures-A4 and A5, wherein they would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that they do not have any intention to pursue the prosecution case, any further. They would also swear that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and that they have no objection in quashing the case against the petitioner. The affidavits are sworn to on their own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that the relief sought for herein be allowed, in view