2025:KER:24547 Crl.M.C No.6537/2024 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 6537 OF 2024 CRIME NO.350/2022 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE AGAINST CC NO.766/2022 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT – I, THAMARASSERY PETITIONER/ACCUSED: MOHAMMED SHEREEF,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O MUHAMMED KOYA, R/AT VYLEKARA HOUSE, ELETTIL VATTOLY.P.O, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKKOD DISTRICT, PIN - 673572 BY ADV KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT, CW2 & CW3: 1 STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 2 SHARSHAD, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O CHEKKU, R/AT KUTHUKALLINGAL HOUSE, ELETTIL VATTOLY.P.O, KIZHAKKOTH VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKKOD DISTRICT., PIN - 673572 3 MEHROOBA, AGED 37 YEARS W/O SHARSHAD, R/AT KUTHUKALLINGAL HOUSE, ELETTIL VATTOLY.P.O, KIZHAKKOTH VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKKOD DISTRICT. PIN - 673572 4 BABY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O MOOTHORAN, R/AT KARIMBARAKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, ELETTIL VATTOLY.P.O, KIZHAKKOTH VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKKOD DISTRICT., PIN - 673572 SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) ADV.K.P.MUHAMMED ARIF THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:24547 Crl.M.C No.6537/2024 -2- C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ======================= Crl.M.C No.6537 of 2024 ======================== Dated this the 11th 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:24547 Crl.M.C No.6537/2024 -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 person in Crime No.350 of 2022 of Koduvally Police Station, Kozhikode, now pending as C.C.No.766/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery. The offences alleged are under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354 and 2025:KER:24547 Crl.M.C No.6537/2024 -4- 506 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. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent no.2 & respondent nos.3 and 4, 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 statements of the defacto complainant and respondents 3 & 4 (injured persons in the said crime), were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner, defacto complainant and the 3rd & 4th respondents have been settled, and that they are disinterested to pursue the prosecution case, as against the petitioner, any further. They would also state that they have no objection in quashing the case against the petitioner. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by 2025:KER:24547 Crl.M.C No.6537/2024 -5- the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-II, wherein he would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled out of the Court and that he does not want to proceed with the case, any further. The defacto complainant would also swear that he has no further complaints against the petitioner and that he has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The affidavit is sworn to on his own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. Affidavits has been sworn to by the wife of the defacto complainant (3rd respondent herein) and 4th respondent, who are the injured persons in the above crime, as Annexures-III and IV respectively, wherein they would also vouch the factum of settlement claimed by the petitioner. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed, pursuant to the settlement arrived between the parties. 5. In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out 2025:KER:24547 Crl.M.C No.6537/2024 -6- 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. This Court also notice that offences under Sections 323, 341 and 506 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-I Final report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.766/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE vdv 2025:KER:24547 Crl.M.C No.6537/2024 -7- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6537/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 350/2022 DATED 22/09/2022 BY THE KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT Annexure II ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 27-7-2024 Annexure III ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE CW2 DATED 27-7-2024 Annexure IV ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY CW3 DATED 27-7-2024