Crl.M.C.No.2121 of 2025 1 2025:KER:27085 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. 2121 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1104/2024 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: AKHILA ANIL AGED 30 YEARS D/O. ANIL KUMAR R NANDANAM, KUNNUVILA MADAM, NJARACKAL, PERINAD P.O., THIRIKKARUVA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691601 BY ADVS. N.ANAND AMEER SALIM ROY ANTONY RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SASTHANCOTTAH POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 690521 Crl.M.C.No.2121 of 2025 2 2025:KER:27085 3 SIVASANKARA PILLAI AGED 73 YEARS S/O KUNJAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PARAPURATHU VEEDU, KOICKAL, PERUVELIKKARA, WEST KALLADA, SASTHAMCOTTAH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM, PIN - 691500 4 JAYASREE AGED 65 YEARS W/O. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, RESIDING AT PARAPURATHU VEEDU, KOICKAL, PERUVELIKKARA, WEST KALLADA, SASTHAMCOTTAH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM, PIN - 691500 BY ADVS. RAJESH O.N. SEENA C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.2121 of 2025 3 2025:KER:27085 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2121 of 2025 4 2025:KER:27085 henious and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 here below: “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.” 2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1104 of 2024 of Sasthamkotta Police Station, Kollam. As per F.I.R, the offences alleged are under Sections 305(a), 296(b) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Crl.M.C.No.2121 of 2025 5 2025:KER:27085 petitioner seeks 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 petitioner; learned counsel for 3rd and 4th respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 4. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statements of 3rd respondent/defacto complainant and 4th respondent/injured. The said direction was complied and the statements recorded were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and 4th respondent are settled in mediation and that the defacto complainant’s son and the petitioner have decided to dissolve their marriage. Therefore, they have no objection in quashing the case against the petitioner. That apart, it is noticed that along with this Crl.M.C, affidavits have been Crl.M.C.No.2121 of 2025 6 2025:KER:27085 sworn to by the defacto complainant (3rd respondent herein) and injured (4th respondent) as Annexures-A2 and A3, wherein they would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that they do not want to proceed against the petitioner, any further. The defacto complainant would also swear that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that that they have no surviving grievance against the petitioner. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. 5. 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 Crl.M.C.No.2121 of 2025 7 2025:KER:27085 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 the offence under Section 115(2) is compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. 6. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in Annexure-A1 F.I.R in Crime No.1104/2024 of the Sasthamkotta Police Station, Kollam, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww Crl.M.C.No.2121 of 2025 8 2025:KER:27085 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2121/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 1104/2024 FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 AT THE 2ND RESPONDENT POLICE ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT DATED 01.03.2025 EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.02.2025 EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, IDEAL ENGLISH SCHOOL, AT RAS AL KHAIMAH - UNITED ARAB EMIRATES