The court established that non-compoundable offences can be quashed if the disputes are private and settled between the parties involved.

O R D E R

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).

2. Petitioners are the accused in C.C No. 65/2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala arising from Crime No. 578/2022 of Anchuthengu Police Station. The above case is chargesheted alleging offences punishable under sections 341, 294(b), 323, 427 r/w 34 IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted him using filthy language.

It also alleged that the accused committed mischief.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. The counsel relies on the affidavit filed by the victim in support of his contention.

The counsel appearing for the victim also submitted that the matter is settled and the victim has no objection in quashing the prosecution.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. But the Public Prosecutor conceded that the matter is settled between the parties.

6. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioner, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the victim.

7. InState of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others ( 2019 (5) SCC 688 ), three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the situation in which non compoundable offences can be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code. The apex court inLaxmi Narayan's case (supra) also relied on the law laid down inGian Singh v. State of Punjab and another ( 2012 (10) SCC 303 ) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another ( 2014 (6) SCC 466 ). The apex court in paragraph 13 of theLaxmi Narayan's case discussed the law in detail and the same is extracted hereunder:

“13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:

i) that the power conferred under S.482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non - compoundable offences under S.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;

ii) 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;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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 between the victim and the offender;

iv) offences under S.307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under S.307 IPC and / or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under S.482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of S.307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of S.307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under S.307 IPC. For thi