The court reiterated that amicable settlement between parties in personal disputes may justify the quashing of FIRs for non-compoundable offences under specific circumstances.

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.MC is to quash Annexure A1 F.I.R in Crime No.197/2023 of Parippally Police Station, Kollam, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1,4 and 5.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 362 ,451 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

4. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, the defacto complainants entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn to by them have also been placed before this Court.

5. Heard both sides.

6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavits sworn to by respondent Nos.3 and 4.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken statements of the defacto complainants, 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 complainants have 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 victims agreed to settle the matter with their 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. Lakshmi 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 Lakshmi 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 A1 F.I.R in Crime No.197/2023 of Parippally Police Station, Kollam, stands hereby quashed.

Sd/-

K. BABU JUDGE AMR APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1811/2023 PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE

3RD RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO. 197/2023 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

Annexure A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO

4.