A High Court can quash proceedings of non-compoundable offenses when the parties have amicably settled their disputes, despite statutory prohibitions.

ORDER

Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-2 Final Report in C.C No. 1263/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the JJ Act , 2015.

4. An affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.2 is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.Rajith, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sanal P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2nd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

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 in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [ (2019) 5 SCC 688 ] has held that the High Court by 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 the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

8. 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. The offence in question does not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-2 Final Report in C.C No. 1263/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, hereby stands quashed.

Sd/-

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

AP

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2377/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO. 440/2019 REGISTERED BY THE PAVARATTY POLICE DATED

19.09.2019 Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE PAVARATTY POLICE IN CRIME NO.440/2019 DATED

10.10.2019 Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.12.2022