The court clarified that criminal proceedings can be quashed for some accused based on settlement, considering individual circumstances, even in non-compoundable offences.

O R D E R

Dated this the 19th day of January, 2023 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1 Final Report in C.C.No.255/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. Altogether, there are five accused. The petitioner is the accused No.1. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant and the respondents 3 to 6 are the accused Nos. 2 to 5.

3. The offence alleged against the accused is punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code .

4. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through counsel.

An affidavits sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.Subhash Cyriac, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Asha Jyothy, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2nd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the accused No.1 with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused No.1 any further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the dispute with the accused No.1 was amicably settled.

7. The Apex Court 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] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the 2nd respondent (de facto complainant) and the accused No.1 alone, who is the petitioner. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court inLovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that it is not impermissible to quash the FIR qua some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court inSajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and Another (2022 (3) KHC 69) , has held that it is permissible to quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C.

9. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that as the dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is amicably settled, 2nd respondent has no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioner. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony w