Court held that amicable settlements may permit quashing of criminal proceedings when offenses are not serious and involve no public interest.

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No. 8824 OF 2022 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2025 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.138/2020 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, North Paravur (Trial Court) which has arisen from Crime No.767/2018 registered by the North Paravur Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (‘ IPC ’, in short) and Sections 134A and 134B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, in short)

2. The petitioner has stated in the Crl. M.C.

that the dispute that led to the alleged incident and the registration of the crime has been amicably settled between him and the 2^nd respondent, who in turn has executed Annexure-3 affidavit vouching the settlement. Therefore, Annexure 2 charge sheet and all further proceedings in S.C.No.138/2020 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, North Paravur may be quashed.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submit that, with the intervention of relatives and well-wishers, the dispute which led to the registration of the crime has been amicably settled. The 2^nd respondent is no longer desirous of pursuing the prosecution. Consequently, the 2^nd respondent has filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection in the Crl.M.C being allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions submits that the Investigating Officer has reported that the parties have arrived at a genuine and bonafide settlement. However, the State has an objection in the offences under Sections 134A and 134B of the M.V.Act being quashed as per the settlement arrived at between the parties because the said offences are committed against the State, and the same cannot be quashed based on a settlement. Therefore, Annexure 2 final report in respect of the offence under Section 308 of IPC may be quashed, and the offences under and 134B of the M.V.Act may be directed to be tried by the jurisdictional court. It would be upto the petitioner to plead guilty before the Trial Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to plead guilty to the offences charged under the M.V.Act.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ], Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [ (2008) 4 SCC 582 ], Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. [ (2025) 4 SCC 78 ], and in a plethora of judgments, has held that in the facts and circumstances of a case and to secure the ends of justice, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed.

8. On an overall consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case and the materials on record, I am satisfied that the offence under Section 308 IPC is not attracted, no public interest or element of social concern is involved, the chances of conviction in respect of the offence under is remote and the continuation of the proceeding in respect of the said offence will only be a wastage of judicial time. Therefore, I find that this is a fit case to quash Annexure-2 final report in respect of the offence punishable under of the . However, as the 2^nd respondent is not the victim in respect of the offences under the M.V.Act and the State has raised an objection to quash the offences as per the settlement, I am not inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the CR.P.C. to quash