O R D E R

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-AI Final Report in C.C.No.1584/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. Altogether, there are eight accused. The petitioner is the accused No.4. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. The 3rd respondent is the injured and the 4th respondent is the mother of the injured/CW3.

3. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(ii), 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 452 and 498A read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

4. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are produced as Annexures-AII, AIII and AIV.

5. I have heard Sri.P.K.Subhash, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sreehari Indukaladharan, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.

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 accused No.4 with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused No.4 further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the dispute with the accused No.4 was amicably settled.

7. The Apex Court in Gian 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 respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the accused No.4 alone who is the petitioner. 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 in Lovely 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 in Sajeev & 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.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that as the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 to 4 is amicably settled and that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioner. 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-AI as against the petitioner. The offences in ques