M.P.Veerandrakumar vs Satheeja Kumari.T.S

Dr Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings in S.T.No.1618/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Ettumanoor.

The petitioners are the accused Nos.2 and 3. Altogether there are four accused. The 1st respondent is the de facto complainant.

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 500 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

During the pendency of the proceedings the entire dispute between the petitioners and the 1st respondent has been settled. The 1st respondent sworn in an affidavit to that effect. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner/2nd accused is no more.

I have heard Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.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 Nos.2 and 3 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 Nos.2 and 3 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 she reported that the dispute with the accused Nos.2 and 3 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 respondent No.1 and the accused Nos.2 and 3 alone who are the petitioners. 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.

The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that as the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.1 is amicably settled and that the respondent No.1 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-A as against the petitioners. 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 in S.T.No.1618/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Ettumanoor as against the 2nd petitioner/3rd accused stand hereby quashed.