The court emphasized that in personal disputes, voluntary and fair settlements should be accepted to avoid unnecessary litigation, allowing quashment of proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

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, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.50 of 2024 of Vadakkekad Police Station, Thrissur, now pending as C.C.No.140/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam. As per the Final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 341 , 323 and 294(b), read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The petitioners seek 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 petitioners; learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4, and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

4. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statements of the respondents 2 to 4. The said direction was complied and the statements of the fathers of the minor respondents 2 and 4, on behalf of the minors, and 3^rd respondent were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the disputes have been settled and that they are disinterested to prosecute the case, any further. They would further state that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, affidavits on behalf of the minors, have been sworn to by the legal guardians of the minor respondents 2 to 4 as Annexures-A3, A4 and A5, wherein they would unequivocally state that the disputes have been fully settled and that they are disinterested to proceed further with the prosecution case. They would also swear that they have no objection in quashing the case against the petitioners and that the affidavits are sworn to on their own volition. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that the relief sought for herein be allowed, in view of the settlement between the parties.

5. In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, a