CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:25901 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1490/2024 OF Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2023 IN CC NO.63 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I MUVATTUPUZHA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 BABY VARGHESE @ KUNJUMON VARGHESE AGED 59 YEARS S/O. Y. BABY, PUTHEN VEEDU, ALENCHERY, YEROOR P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691312 2 SUDHA VARGHESE AGED 55 YEARS W/O. KUNJUMON VARGHESE, PUTHEN VEEDU, ALENCHERY, YEROOR P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691312 3 SKARIA AGED 68 YEARS S/O. SKARIA BABY, TULSI SANIDHYA CO-OP HSG SOCIETY, A1/102 CHIKLOLI, OPP SOUTH INDIAN COLLEGE, AMBERNATH WEST, ABARNATH, THANE, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 421501 4 SAJI SAM AGED 56 YEARS S/O V.T. SAMUEL, SAM VILLA, VALLIKALAYIL VTC, KOZHENCHERRY, NARANGANAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689642 CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:25901 BY ADV SHABEER ALI MOHAMED RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686661 3 SUNU THOMAS AGED 50 YEARS W/O. FR. THOMAS CHAKIRIYIL, CHAKIRIYIL HOUSE, NIRAPPU BHAGAM, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686664 BY ADV BIJU ABRAHAM SMT. SEENA C. (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:25901 C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 24th day of March, 2025 ORDER A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2007) 4 CTC 769], framed broad guidelines as regards quashment of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code in respect of offences which are not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code. One among the guidelines was that the offences against human body, other than murder and culpable homicide, may be permitted to be compounded, when the court is in a position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. These guidelines were quoted with approval by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. Similarly in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:25901 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R. in a crime alleging offence under Section 307, which is a heinous and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] as regards quashment in respect of offences like 379, 406, 409, 418, etc., the relevant findings of which are extracted herebelow: “6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:25901 2. In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.1490/2023 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.63/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha. As per the final report the offences alleged are under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 506(1), 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent no.3 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 4. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The said direction was complied and the statement recorded over the phone, was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:25901 the defacto complainant are settled amicably and that the defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled amicably and that she does not want to proceed with the prosecution case, any further. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. 5. In the light of the above referred facts, this CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:25901 Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in Narinder Singh (supra), Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), are fully satisfied. This Court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioners will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. This Court also notice that offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506(1) are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 F.I.R., Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.1490/2023 and all further proceedings in CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:25901 C.C.No.63/2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE ska CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:25901 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 313/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1490 OF 2023 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION DATED 08.09.2023 WITH FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED IN C. C. NO. 63/2024 OF JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 12-01- 2024 Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08-01-2025 AFFIRMING THE ABOVE FACT