Permissibility of quashing the final report against one or some of the accused based on settlement, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of CrPC is filed by the 2nd accused in Crime No.598/2018 of Palode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 294(b), 506(ii), 323 and 354 of IPC, to quash Annexure A1 final report in C.C.No.668/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Nedumangad.

2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 06.06.2018 at

8 PM, due to previous enmity, accused nos.1 to 5 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and attacked the de-facto complainant and his mother while they were returning to their house. The accused persons restrained the defacto complainant, broke the front glass and bonnet of his car. Accused no.1 pulled the shawl of his mother so as to hit her head on the side of the car. Moreover, they outraged her modesty, and criminally intimidated the defacto complainant.

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 A2 and A3 afÏdavits, filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondent, stating that they have settled the dispute as against the petitioner, and they are not intending to prosecute this matter against him.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that, the matter has been settled, and he produced signed statements of respondents 2 and 3, stating that, they have no objection in quashing Annexure A1 final report in C.C.No.668/2018, as against the 2nd accused.

5. In the case on hand, the petitioner is the 2nd accused and the settlement arrived is only between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. The 2nd and 3rd respondent have 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.

6. 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.”

7. The affected parties have condoned the act of the petitioner herein, and they filed afÏdavits stating that they have no intention to proceed against him. In such circumstances, the crime can be quashed as against him. 8. In the light of the decision cited Supra, an