2025:KER:22151 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 1825 OF 2025 CRIME NO.901/2022 OF Town North Police Station, Palakkad AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.384 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PALAKKAD PETITIONER/ACCUSED: NISHAD OMANAKUTTAN AGED 22 YEARS CHEMMAMKODE HOUSE, MANKADA, MANKADA P.O MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 679332 BY ADV SANOJ M.A. RESPONDENT S /S TATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PALGHAT TOWN NORTH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001 3 ADITHYA S NAIR AGED 21 YEARS MINI NIVAS, VELLILA, VELLILA P.O MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679342 BY ADV JERIN GEORGE SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:22151 Crl.MC.No.1825 of 2025 :2: C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.MC.No.1825 of 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of March, 2025 O R D E R 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 2025:KER:22151 Crl.MC.No.1825 of 2025 :3: 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], 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 henious 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 2025:KER:22151 Crl.MC.No.1825 of 2025 :4: 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.” 2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.901 of 2022 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad, now pending as C.C.No.384/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad. As per the Final report, the offences alleged are under Section 354(D), 506(i), 511 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto 2025:KER:22151 Crl.MC.No.1825 of 2025 :5: complainant/respondent no.3 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 5. 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 was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant are settled amicably and that they are residing together harmoniously as husband and wife. The defacto complainant would further state that the complaint against the petitioner was registered due to compulsion from her family and not at her instance; wherefore, she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 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-7, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled amicably and 2025:KER:22151 Crl.MC.No.1825 of 2025 :6: that they are married. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioner and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. 6. In the light of the above referred facts, this 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 petitioner 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 2025:KER:22151 Crl.MC.No.1825 of 2025 :7: 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 offence under Section 506(i) is 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-1 FIR, Annexure-2 Final Report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.384/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE. Raj. 2025:KER:22151 Crl.MC.No.1825 of 2025 :8: APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1825/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO. 0901/2022 DATED 24.09.2022, IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 1. Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT NO.14/2023 DATED ON 20.03.2023 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, PALAKKAD, WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 2 Annexure 3 THE TRUE COPY OF COMPUTATION CHARGE FORM NO. 32 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 3. Annexure 4 THE TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION DATED 07.11.2024 OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 4. Annexure 5 DATED ON 14.11.2024 MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 5 Annexure 6 THE MARRIAGE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ARE PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 6. Annexure 7 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT /3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.02.2025 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 7.