The court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 when parties reach a voluntary and fair settlement, especially in personal disputes, to prevent abuse of process.

O R D E R

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2025 A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court inKulwinder 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 inGian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ]. Similarly inNarinder 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 henious 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 and 2 in Crime No.701 of 2024 of Peruvamthanam Police Station, Idukki. The offences alleged are under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 296(b), 126(2) and 3(5) of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above crime, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent no. 3 & respondent nos.4 and 5; and 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 respondent nos. 4 and 5 were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners, the defacto complainant and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 are settled amicably and that the marital tie between the 1^st petitioner and the defacto complainant was dissolved by mutual consent and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (3^rd respondent herein) as Annexure-IV, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled amicably. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioners and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to her own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, whatsoever. Annexures-V and VI are the affidavits sworn to by respondent nos. 4 and 5 (parents of the defacto complainant) who are the victims in the above-referred