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

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12157

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. Babu, J
MUHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 3616 2023



Advocates:
A.ARUNKUMAR S.SHYAM KUMAR HEERAKRISHNA T.H.SACHIN GEORGE ARAMBAN

A settlement between parties can lead to quashing non-compoundable offences if it serves justice and does not harm public interest.

Headnote:

Quash - Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code Section 498A, Cr.P.C. Section 482, Section 320 - The court quashed the FIR and final report as the parties had reached a voluntary and fair settlement, ruling that it aligns with justice and does not compromise public interest.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, accused of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, sought to quash an FIR and final report after settling the dispute with the defacto complainant, who also filed an affidavit attesting to the settlement.

Finding of the Court:

The court concluded that the settlement was voluntary and fair, satisfying the conscience of the court, and determined that public interest was not compromised, thus allowing the request to quash the proceedings.

Issues: Whether the court can quash non-compoundable offences based on a voluntary settlement between parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that under specific circumstances, it can quash criminal proceedings related to non-compoundable offences if a fair settlement is reached, as supported by apex court precedents.

Final Decision: The Crl.M.C is allowed and the FIR and proceedings are quashed.

O R D E R

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure AII Final Report in Crime No.460/2018 of Adhur Police Station, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.715/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasargod on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Respondent No.2, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before this court.

5. Heard both sides.

6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent No.2.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken statement of the defacto complainant, and it is reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The material placed before the Court shows that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed further. The settlement between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair. The settlement or the compromise satisfies the conscience of the Court. It is seen that the victim agreed to settle the matter with her free will.

8. InGian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] the Apex Court held that the High Court, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

9. In the instant case, the dispute is purely personal in nature. There is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised by quashing the proceedings. The offences in question do not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences.

10. The offences in the present case do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for granting permission to compromise in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

11. This Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further.

Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure AII Final Report in Crime No.460/2018 of Adhur Police Station, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.715/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasargod stand hereby quashed.

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