The court emphasized the importance of quashing criminal proceedings when parties reach a genuine settlement, preventing abuse of the legal process.

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 inGian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ]. Similarly inNarindar 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 offences 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 the accused in Crime No.79 of 2023 of Vattiyoorkkavu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, now pending as C.C.No.487/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangadu. The offences alleged are under Section 279, 447, 294(b), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner seeks quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, 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. 2 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 statement was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled amicably and that the defacto complainant 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 (2^nd respondent herein) as Annexure A2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled out of the Court and that the complaint stemmed from misunderstanding. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide.

5. In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in Narinder Singh (supra), Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and Gian Singh (supra), are fully satisfied.