2025:KER:24653 Crl.M.C No.5790/2021 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 5790 OF 2021 CRIME NO.1083/2017 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST CC NO.1598 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIPUNITHURA PETITIONER/ACCUSED: AJITH KUMAR, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. K.S.RAVUNNI, SREERAGAM HOUSE, ONAMBILLY, EDAVOOR PO., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 544. BY ADV P.A.ABHILASH RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. 2 LEKHA,AGED 49 YEARS,W/O. AJITH KUMAR, SREERAGAM HOUSE, ONAMBILLY, EDAVOOR P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 544. BY ADV HENA BAHULEYAN SRI. E.C. BINEESH (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:24653 Crl.M.C No.5790/2021 -2- C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ======================= Crl.M.C No.5790 of 2021 ======================== Dated this the 17th 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], 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 2025:KER:24653 Crl.M.C No.5790/2021 -3- 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 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.1083 of 2017 of Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.1598/2017 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Tripunithura. The offences alleged are under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of 2025:KER:24653 Crl.M.C No.5790/2021 -4- 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. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent no.2 and the learned Senior 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 was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant are settled. The defacto complainant is disinterested to pursue the prosecution case, any further and that 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 (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled amicably and that the complaint stemmed from some 2025:KER:24653 Crl.M.C No.5790/2021 -5- misunderstanding. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no subsisting 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, without any compulsion, whatsoever. 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. 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 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. 2025:KER:24653 Crl.M.C No.5790/2021 -6- This Court also notice that offence under Section 506(ii) 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-A1 F.I.R, Annexure-A2 Final report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1598/2017 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Tripunithura, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE vdv 2025:KER:24653 Crl.M.C No.5790/2021 -7- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5790/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1083/2017 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION. Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1083/2017. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21.10.2021.