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 offence under Section 307, which is a heinous and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme 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 herebelow:

“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 accused nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.777/2018 of Kongad Police Station, Palakkad, now pending as S.C.No.629/2023 before the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Palakkad. As per the final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 324, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above Sessions 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 the defacto complainant/2^nd respondent and 3^rd respondent, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

4. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The said direction was complied and the statements of the defacto complainant and the 3^rd respondent (injured person in the said crime), were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners, the defacto complainant and the injured are settled and that they are no longer interested to proceed with the prosecution. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2^nd respondent herein) as Annexure-2, wherein he would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled amicably and they are in good relation. The defacto complainant would also swear that he has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. This Court also takes note of Annexure-3 affidavit sworn to by the 3, [endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed.] respondent, the injured, wherein he would also reiterate the factum of settlement. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant/2^nd respondent and 3rd respondent would also

5. In the light of the above