O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused in CC No.881/2018 which is a private complaint filed by the 2 nd respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Court, Chalakudy. Respondent No.2 is the wife of the 3 rd respondent. The petitioners are brothers of the 3 rd respondent.

2. Crime No.243/2018 had been registered before Mala Police Station against alleging commission of offences under Section 351, 323, 354, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners on the complaint of respondents 2 & 3. On the filing of a refer report in that Crime, by the Police, the 2 nd respondent filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy against the petitioners. After taking the sworn statement of the 2 nd respondent and her husband, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint for offences under Sections 451, 323, 354 & 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The complaint is numbered as C.C 881 of 2018.

3. This Crl. M.C. has been filed stating that the issues between the petitioners and respondents 2 & 3 have been amicably settled and this is evident from the affidavits filed by respondents 2 & 3 which is produced as Annexure-IV & V. In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C where the High Court is approached seeking to quash criminal proceedings, on the ground that matters have been settled between the parties. The principles were summarized as under:-

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may