The court ruled that criminal proceedings can be quashed if charges are based on amicable settlement and evidence doesn't substantiate serious allegations.

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.509 of 2023 registered at the Anchuthengu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for offences under Sections 323 , 324, 506 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.7155 of 2024 are children in conflict with law and hence the final report in their case was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Thiruvananthapuram and is now pending as S.T.No.84 of 2024. The final report against the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3828 of 2024 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class -I, Varkala and is now pending as C.P.No.126 of 2023. The crime was registered on the allegation that, at about 10 pm on 06.08.2023, by reason of their animosity towards the 2^nd respondent for refusing to call CW1 from out of his house, the petitioners assaulted and attacked the 2^nd respondent with a chopper, resulting in injuries. This Crl.M.C is filed seeking to quash the crime and further proceedings against the petitioners on the premise that the dispute between the parties is settled amicably and the 2^nd respondent has no subsisting grievance.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident is the offshoot of an altercation during a football match and two among the petitioners were minors when the incident occurred and even going by the prosecution case, the other petitioner had only beaten the 2^nd respondent with hands. It is further submitted that, in the counter attack, the petitioners also suffered injuries and the crime registered at their instance is also sought to be quashed based on settlement. It is also submitted that the petitioners are members of the fishing community in the coastal region and the prosecution, if continued, will only result in further law and order issues. Referring to the wound certificate, it is submitted that the injuries are not grave, even though the allegation is of having used a chopper. It is contended that the parties having amicably settled all issues, this Court can quash the proceedings, since the materials collected by the prosecution do not make out the offence of attempt to murder. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [2019 (5)

SCC 688].

3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, since the offence under Section 307 of IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and is treated as a crime against society, this Court will not be justified in quashing the proceedings based on settlement.

4. While the offence of attempt to murder is a serious offence, the question here is whether the petitioners, two of whom are minors and the third who has just become a major, should be prosecuted and punished, despite the settlement. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners, the wound certificate of the 2^nd respondent shows only contusions and abrasions. The petitioners and the 2^nd respondent belong to the same area and the counter case is also sought to be quashed based on the settlement. On an overall consideration of the above factors, I am of the opinion that even though the offence under Section 307 IPC is alleged, the petitioners did not have the intention to commit murder.

5. In Laxmi Narayan (supra), even while holding Section

307 IPC to be beyond the purview of quashing based on settlement, the Apex Court clarified the legal position as under;

“15.4. Offences under Section 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 Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Ac