The court established that settlements can allow for quashing criminal proceedings against some accused, even in non-compoundable offences, based on discretion within Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

O R D E R

Dated this the 13th day of January, 2023 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-2 Final Report in S.C.No.750/2011 on the files of the IV Additional Session's Court, Thrissur on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant. Altogether, there are five accused. The 2nd respondent is the accused No.4.

3. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 120 (b), 153-A, 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act .

4. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through counsel.

5. I have heard Sri.Anand Kalyanakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Abraham Mathan, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. Even though, offence under Section 307 of the IPC is involved, the said offence is not attracted as against the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent petitioner did not use any weapon. The weapon was used by the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The prosecution allegation is that the 2nd respondent and the accused No.5 helped the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the commission of the offence. Hence, Section 307 of is not attracted against the 2nd respondent.

7. The Apex Court inGian 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. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the petitioner (de facto complainant) and the 2nd respondent (accused No.4) alone. 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 inLovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another [(2018) 12 SCC 391] 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. This Court inSajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and Another (2022 (3) KHC 69) , has held that it is permissible to quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. 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.

9. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that as the dispute between the petitioner (de facto complainant) and the 2nd respondent (accused No.4) is amicably settled, petitioner has no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the 2nd respondent. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-2 as against the 2nd respondent. The offences in que