IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 2193 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 372/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VADAKKANCHERRY CRIME NO. 1402 OF 2021 OF WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/S:

1 ARSHAD AGED 32 YEARS S/O RASHEED M., KUTTIKKAL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD DESOM, OPP. V.K.L. COMPANY, PANDINJARE VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012

2 SAJEENA AGED 49 YEARS W/O RASHEED M., KUTTIKKAL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD DESOM, OPP. V.K.L. COMPANY, PANDINJARE VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012

3 RASHEED M.

AGED 60 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED KOYA., KUTTIKKAL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD DESOM, OPP. V.K.L. COMPANY, PANDINJARE VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012

4 RISHAD AGED 31 YEARS S/O RASHEED M., KUTTIKKAL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD DESOM, OPP. V.K.L. COMPANY, PANDINJARE VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012

5 HIBA AGED 23 YEARS W/O RASHEED M., KUTTIKKAL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD DESOM, OPP. V.K.L. COMPANY, PANDINJARE VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012 BY ADVS.

M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN K.SUNIL ALEENA MARIA JOSE M.ARDRA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 SANANM C.I.

AGED 28 YEARS D/O SHEIK IMTHIAS, CHENOTHPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLAMPARA DESOM, PANANGOTTU KARA P.O, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680623 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT MK PUSHPA LETHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

K.BABU, J -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2193 of 2023 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 11^th day of April, 2023

O R D E R

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-B Charge in Crime No.1402 of 2021 of Wadakkanchery Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.372 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery, 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 5.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 406, 498-A and 34 of IPC. 4. Respondent No.2, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before the Court.

5. Heard Shri. M.S.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

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. In Gian 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 quash