Babu C and Others v. State of Kerala and Yamuna C and Rajeev

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 8070 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.367/2020 OF POOKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION,** ## **MALAPPURAM** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 3 TO 6:** **1 BABU C AGED 59 YEARS S/O BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, CHUNGAPALLY HOUSE, MUNDUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676509 2 SUNIL V.P @ UNNI AGED 41 YEARS S/O VASUDEVAN, AGED 41 YEARS, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THONDI, KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679329 3 SUDHEER @ KANNAN AGED 38 YEARS S/O VASUDEVAN, AGED 38YEARS, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THONDI, KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679329 4 KRISHNACHANDRAN AGED 36 YEARS S/O SHIVASHANKARAN, AGED 36 YEARS, THARAYINGAL HOUSE, RAMAMKUTHU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679330 5 VASUDEVAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O ACHUTHAN, AGED 70 YEARS, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THONDI, KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT** **CRL.MC NO. 8070 OF 2022** 2 ## **PIN - 679329** ## **BY ADV ANTONY ROBERT DIAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI PIN - 682031** - **2 YAMUNA C AGED 26 YEARS D/O BABU C, AGED 26 YEARS, CHUNGAPALLY HOUSE, MUNDUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676509** - **3 RAJEEV AGED 36 YEARS S/O RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 36 YEARS, POURNAMI HOUSE, CHERUVAYIKKARA, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679576** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.MANU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SOJAN MICHEAL** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **28.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CRL.MC NO. 8070 OF 2022** 3 ## **O R D E R** This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-1 Final Report in Crime No.367 of 2020 of Pookottumpadam Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6. The 2[nd] respondent is the _de facto_ complainant. The 3[rd] respondent is the injured. 3. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 509, 506, 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC. 4. Affidavits sworn in by the _de facto_ complainant and the 3[rd] respondent are produced. 5. I have heard Sri.Antony Robert Dias, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Sojan Micheal, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondents 2 and 3 would show that the entire dispute between the petitioners/accused **CRL.MC NO. 8070 OF 2022** 4 Nos.1 and 3 to 6 with the _de facto_ complainant has been amicably settled and the _de facto_ complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 any further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the _de facto_ complainant was also recorded wherein the _de facto_ complainant reported that the dispute with the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to noncompoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of **CRL.MC NO. 8070 OF 2022** 5 justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. 8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the 2[nd] respondent (de facto complainant) and the accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 alone, who are the petitioners. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court _**in Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another**_ [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that it is not impermissible to quash **CRL.MC NO. 8070 OF 2022** 6 the FIR _qua_ some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court in _**Sajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and Another**_ (2022 (3) KHC 69), has held that it is permissible to quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that as the dispute between the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 and the respondent 2 and 3 is amicably settled and they have no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by **CRL.MC NO. 8070 OF 2022** 7 quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1 as against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra) and _**Laxmi Narayan**_ (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1 Final Report in Crime No.367 of 2020 of Pookottumpadam Police Station as against the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 alone hereby stand quashed. Sd/- **DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE** AS **CRL.MC NO. 8070 OF 2022** 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8070/2022** **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 18.12.2020 IN CRIME NO: 367/2020 OF POOKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE2 AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.10.2022 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.10.2022 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**