Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9384
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SHAMNA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 1880 2023
V.S.NOWSHAD R.MURALEEKRISHNAN T.M.RESHMY SITHARA.S BINU K.B. ALI SAVAD
Criminal proceedings may be quashed if there is an amicable settlement and no public interest in continuing the case.
Headnote:
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code - Sections 294(b), 506(i), 34 - The court quashed proceedings based on amicable resolution between parties, reiterating principles from precedent cases that allow for quashing in absence of public interest.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, asserting that the matter had been amicably resolved with the defacto complainant.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed based on amicable settlement between the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that criminal proceedings can be quashed if amicable resolution is reached and no public interest is at stake, referencing several Supreme Court decisions.
Final Decision: All proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
ORDER
Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.
2. Petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.1190/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, arising out of Crime No.1931/2016 of Attingal Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 506(i) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860. 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings.
This view was reiterated inNarinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [ (2014) 6 SCC 466 ] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [ (2014) 9 SCC 653 ].
6. I have perused Annexure A3 afÏdavit filed by the 2nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the afÏdavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing.
The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.
7. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.1190/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, are quashed.
This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
