It is lawful to quash criminal proceedings against some accused based on amicable settlement, even for non-compoundable offenses, depending on case-specific circumstances.

O R D E R

Dated this the 18th day of January, 2023 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.891/2022 of Munambam Police Station, Ernakulam on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The remaining accused are not in the party array. The 1st respondent is the defacto complainant and the 2nd respondent is the injured

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 427, 294(b) and 149 of the IPC.

4. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.

5. I have heard Sri. Joby Cyriac, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. K.J. Manu Raj, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 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 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would show that the entire dispute between the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has been amicably settled and they have decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 any 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 he reported that the dispute with the accused Nos. 1 and 2 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 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. 1 and 2 and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 alone, who are the petitioners herein. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. 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 Courtin 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 inSajeev & 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. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that as the dispute between the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2 is amicably settled, they have no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioners. The dispute in the above ca