The court delineated the boundaries of exercising Section 482 powers, emphasizing that only non-serious, settled disputes might warrant quashing proceedings.

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 petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No. 448 of 2023 of the Peravoor Police Station, Kannur. In the aforesaid case, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution allegation is that on 22.05.2023 at about

08.00 p.m., the petitioner herein attacked the defacto complainant, who is a bartender at K.K. Bar, Peravur, for not serving liquor to the accused. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the parties have settled their disputes and they are not desirous of pursuing the prosecution proceedings. Reliance is placed on Annexure- 2 affidavit filed by the 2nd 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 have been resolved between the parties concerned is true and genuine. The investigating officer was also directed to report as to whether the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and whether there is any other impediment in terminating the criminal proceedings.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has raised reservations with regard to the prospect of quashing the present proceedings purely on the basis of the settlement. It is urged that the extant circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction, as conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is fairly submitted that no other transgressions or complaints stand registered against the petitioner hitherto. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has unequivocally expressed that he harbor no enduring 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 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

1 [ (2019) 5 SCC 688 ] 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

3 2014 (6) SCC 466 4 (2014) 4 SCC 149 5 (2014) 10 SCC 285 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 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 committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise betwe