Imtiaz Aziz vs Varghese Bastian

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1 private complaint in C.C.No. 648/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakkada, on the ground of settlement between the parties.

Altogether there are four accused. The petitioner is the accused No.2. The 1st respondent is the de facto complainant.

The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 323, 354 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant is produced.

I have heard Sri. Shaijan C George, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Benny Joseph, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, Smt. and Sri. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 1st respondent would show that the entire dispute between the accused No.2 with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused No.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 No.2 was amicably settled.

The Apex Court in Gian 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.

It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the 1st respondent(de facto complainant) and the accused No.2 alone, who is the petitioner. 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 Court in 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 in Sajeev & 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.

The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that as the dispute between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is amicably settled, the 1st respondent has no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioner. 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 as against the petitioner. The offences in question do 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 further.

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1 private complaint in C.C.No. 648/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakkada, as against the petitioner/accused No.2 alone hereby stand quashed.