Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19560
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kauser Edappagath, J
SAJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/7228/2022
M.K.FAISAL, M.A.ANZAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, K.G.PREETHY, SRI P G MANU-SR PP
The court can quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings if the parties have settled their dispute amicably, invoking discretion under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Settlement - Criminal Proceedings - Cr.P.C. Sections [482, 320] - The court discusses the application of Sections 482 and 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code in quashing criminal proceedings where the parties have settled their dispute amicably, emphasizing the court's discretion to ensure justice.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a petition to quash the final report in a criminal case based on an amicable settlement with the complainant, who expressed willingness not to pursue the case any further.
Issues: Whether the court can quash criminal proceedings in light of an amicable settlement between the parties, despite the offences being non-compoundable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents which allow the quashing of non-compoundable offences under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when there is a settlement between the parties, upholding the principles of justice and preventing the abuse of court processes.
Final Decision: The Criminal M.C. is allowed and the Final Report is hereby quashed.
O R D E R
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-1 Final Report in C.C.No. 1476/2015 of Judicial First Class Magistrate I Court, N.Paravur on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the charge witnesses.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498(A), 341, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.M.K.Faisal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, K.G.Preethy, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri. P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondents 2 to 4 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-1. The offences 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-1 Final Report in C.C.No. 1476/2015 of Judicial First Class Magistrate I Court, N.Paravur hereby stands quashed.
