The High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties in appropriate cases.

ORDER

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.

2. Petitioners are accused 1, 4 and 5 in C.P. No.37 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.1423 of 2015 of Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 294(b), 308, 323, 324, 342 and 427 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

3. According to the prosecution, on 15.09.2015, the accused had wrongfully confined the defacto complainant and assaulted him with a cricket bat thereby committing the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

6. Though the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused are involved in two other crimes, having regard to the nature of settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the view that the proceedings can be quashed on the basis of settlement.

7. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v.

State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

8. I have perused Annexure-A2 affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

9. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.P. No.37 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.