Quashing of final report against specific accused based on settlement is permissible under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the

3rd accused in L.P.No.39/2023, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery (Temporary), arising from C.C.No.1244/2018, in Crime No.903/2015 of Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam, registered under Sections 452, 354, 323 and 34 of IPC, for quashing Annexure-1 final report.

2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 12.07.2015 at

7.30 PM, due to some previous quarrel between the son of the de-facto complainant over parking of vehicles, accused 1 and 2, along with the petitioner, trespassed into the house of the de-facto complainant and outraged her modesty. Thereafter she was pulled out to the courtyard, and the petitioner and the

2nd accused kicked on her chest and stomach.

3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the matter has been amicably settled and he produced Annexure-2 afÏdavit filed by the de-facto complainant, stating that the entire dispute has been settled, and she is not intending to prosecute this matter any further.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that, the matter has been settled, and he produced signed statement of the 2nd respondent, stating that, she has no objection in quashing Annexure-1 final report in L.P.No.39/2023, as against him.

5. In the case on hand, the petitioner is the 3rd accused and the settlement arrived is only between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has not settled the matter with the other accused. InSajeev and Another v. State of Kerala and Another [2022 (3) KHC 69] this Court held 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 Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Paragraph 9 of Sajeev’s case cited supra reads as follows.

“9. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the 2nd respondent and the accused Nos.2 and 4 alone who are the petitioners. 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 in Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another, 2017 KHC 3564 : (2018) 12 SCC 391 : 2017 (2) KLT 424 : AIR 2017 SC 2595 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. In Sreejith v. State of Kerala and Another (Crl.M.C.No.3343/2021 dated 10/08/2021), this Court quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. 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. ”

6. The defacto complainant has condoned the act of the petitioner herein, and filed an afÏdavit stating that she has no intention to proceed against him. In such circumstances, the crime can be quashed as against him.

7. In the light of the decision cited Supra, and also relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another; [(2012) 10 SCC 303)], and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others; [(2019) 5 SCC