The court clarified the limits of its powers under Section 482 to quash non-compoundable offences based on amicable settlements while distinguishing serious from non-serious offences.

ORDER

This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (“the Code”) for the sake of brevity.

2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.

221 of 2023 of the Vellarikundu Police Station, Kasargod District. In the said case, they are accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution allegation is that on 30.04.2023 at about 2 p.m., the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant, and attacked him, causing injuries.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the parties have settled their disputes and they are not desirous of pursuing the prosecution proceedings. Reliance is placed on Annexure - A2 affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent to substantiate his contention. According to the learned counsel, if the proceedings are terminated, recording the amicable settlement, the parties can embark upon their future paths in an atmosphere of tranquility and mutual respect.

5. When the matter had come up for admission, this court had directed the investigating officer concerned to record the statement of the defacto complainant/injured/victim and report as to whether the assertion in the petition and the affidavit filed in support that, entire disputes has been resolved between the parties concerned is true and genuine. The investigating officer was also directed to report as to whether the petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents and whether there is any other impediment in terminating the criminal proceedings.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings based solely on the settlement. He argues that the facts and circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . However, it is fairly submitted that there have been no other crimes of serious nature registered against the petitioners to date. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has unequivocally stated that he does not have any lasting grievances.

7. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records.

8. In State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan ,1, a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the law as laid down in

1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688]

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab3, State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat4, State of M.P. v. Deepak5, State of M.P. v. Manish6, J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup7; State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh8, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat9, State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh10 and State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar11. It was laid down as under:

15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not

2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

3 2014 (6) SCC 466 4 (2014) 4 SCC 149 5 (2014) 10 SCC 285

6 (2015) 8 SCC 307 7 2016) 12 SCC 179 8 (2016) 12 SCC 471

9 (2017) 9 SCC 641 10 (2019) 4 SCC 268 11 (2019) 5 SCC 570]

private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences co