Saudha Beevi vs State Of Kerala

K.Babu, J

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.1086/2023 of Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District and release petitioner No.2 on bail in the said crime, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2.

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

Respondent No.2, the defacto complainant and respondent Nos.3 and 4 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn to by them have also been placed before the Court.

Heard both sides.

I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavits sworn to by respondent Nos.2 to 4.

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken the statements of the victims, and it is reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The material placed before the Court shows that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed further. The settlement between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair. The settlement or the compromise satisfies the conscience of the Court. It is seen that the victims agreed to settle the matter with their free will.

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. Lakshmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] the Apex Court held that the High Court, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

In the instant case, the dispute is purely personal in nature. There is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised by quashing the proceedings. The offences in question do not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences.

The offences in the present case do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for granting permission to compromise in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Lakshmi Narayan (supra).

This Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further.

It is submitted that petitioner No.2 is in judicial custody. The Court below shall forthwith order to release petitioner No.2 from prison, if not required in any other case.

Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.1086/2023 of Varkala Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to it stand hereby quashed.