2025:KER:23844 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 7540 OF 2024 CRIME NO.2356/2014 OF Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.376 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ADOOR PETITIONER/ACUSED: RAJAN VARGHESE AGED 68 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE, PALLATHPUTHEN VEEDU, ARAMANAPADI, AMMAKANDAKARA MURI, PERINGINAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691528 BY ADVS. MATHEW KURIAKOSE T.G.SUNIL (PERUMBAVOOR) C.N.PRAKASH ARUN.S. J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR) SHAJI P.K. PREETHU JAGATHY RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 JOHN K .J., AGED 80 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH ULAHANNAN, KOIPURATHU BETHEL HOUSE, ARAMANAPADI, AMMAKANDAKARA MURI, PERINGINAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691528 3 MARIAMMA JOHN AGED 66 YEARS W/O. JOHN K.J., KOIPURATHU BETHEL HOUSE, ARAMANAPADI, AMMAKANDAKARA MURI, PERINGINAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691528 4 ALEX JOHN, Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844 - 2 - AGED 36 YEARS S/O. JOHN K.J., KOIPURATHU BETHEL HOUSE, ARAMANAPADI, AMMAKANDAKARA MURI, PERINGINAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691528 BY ADV MONI GEORGE OTHER PRESENT: SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844 - 3 - C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.7540 of 202 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 10th 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 Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844 - 4 - 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844 - 5 - technicalities of the law.” 2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.2356/2014 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta, now pending as C.C.No.376/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. As per the final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 447, 326, 324 and 323 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 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and respondents 3 and 4 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 statements of the defacto complainant and respondents 3 and 4 (injured persons) were handed over. On perusal of the Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844 - 6 - same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner, the defacto complainant and the injured are settled amicably and that they have 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-B, wherein he would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that the complaint stemmed from some misunderstanding. The defacto complainant does not want to proceed with the prosecution case any more and that he has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. This Court also perused Annexures C and D affidavits sworn to by the injures persons (respondents 3 and 4), wherein they would also vouch the factum of settlement. The affidavits are sworn to on their own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the respondents 2 Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844 - 7 - to 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 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 447 and 323 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. Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844 - 8 - Annexure-A Final Report in Crime no.2356/2014 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.376/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, are hereby quashed. Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE ska Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844 - 9 - APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7540/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 2356/2014 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION IN PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT [ RELEVANT PAGES ONLY ] Annexure B ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.07.2024 Annexure C ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06.07.2024 Annexure D ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 06.07.2024 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE