High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCRL.MC allowed; quashed F.I.R. (Crime No.1490/2...

CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025
Neutral Citation:2025:KER:25901

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date
2025-03-24
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed. The High Court quashes F.I.R. in Crime No.1490/2023, the Final Report in Crime No.1490/2023, and all further proceedings in CC No.63/2024 before the JFCM, Muvattupuzha. Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2 are set aside as per the quashment. The quashment is founded on the genuine and bonafide settlement between the parties, the absence of any grievance by the defacto complainant, and the application of the guidelines in Kulwinder Singh, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Madan Mohan Abbot, which endorse quashing where it serves ends of justice and does not undermine the prosecution’s real interest where the matter is personal and capable of settlements. The orders will bring an end to the proceedings, preventing abuse of process.
Final Disposition
CRL.MC allowed; quashed F.I.R. (Crime No.1490/2023), final report, and CC No.63/2024; settlement found genuine and bonafide; no grievance from the defacto complainant; ends of justice served.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • BABY VARGHESE @ KUNJUMON VARGHESE
  • SUDHA VARGHESE
  • SKARIA
  • SAJI SAM

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA
  • SUNU THOMAS aged 50 years W/O. FR. THOMAS CHAKIRIYIL, CHAKIRIYIL HOUSE, NIRAPPU BHAGAM, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686664

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv SHABEER ALI MOHAMED

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv BIJU ABRAHAM
  • • SMT. SEENA C. (PP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, exercises its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in a petition filed as CRL.MC No. 313 of 2025 challenging Crime No.1490/2023 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, now pending as CC No.63/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha. The petitioners, four accused, seek quashment on the basis of a settlement with the defacto complainant (3rd respondent), who states that the disputes have been settled amicably and that she has no objection to quashing the proceedings. The court recorded the defacto complainant’s statement by phone and examined Annexure-A3 affidavit confirming the voluntary and genuine nature of the settlement. Relying on established Supreme Court guidelines—Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab—the court notes that where disputes are personal, the courts may accept terms of compromise, and even offences under IPC 341, 323, and 506(1) can be considered for quashment if the settlement is genuine and fair and continues ends of justice while avoiding abuse of process. The court, holding that the offences are compoundable and the settlement is bona fide, allows the Crl.M.C and quashes F.I.R. (Crime No.1490/2023), the final report, and CC No.63/2024. The neutral citation is 2025:KER:25901. The bench is a Single Judge, Justice C. Jayachandran.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Section 482IPC Section 341IPC Section 323IPC Section 294(b)IPC Section 506(1)IPC Section 354IPC Section 34IPC Section 307IPC Section 379IPC Section 406IPC Section 409IPC Section 418IPC Section 320

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings.
  • Settlement between parties in criminal cases can be honoured when genuine and bonafide; it saves time and prevents abuse of process.
  • Ends of justice require that disputes of a purely personal nature may be resolved through compounding where permissible, to avoid needless trials.
  • Abuse of process of court must be avoided; quashing is appropriate to secure ends of justice.
  • Common-sense approach to resolution of disputes, recognizing practical realities of overburdened courts.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the disputes have been settled amicably with the defacto complainant, who has no grievance and no objection to quashing the criminal proceedings. Relying on well-established guidelines from Kulwinder Singh, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Madan Mohan Abbot, they urge that quashing under Section 482 CrPC is permissible where the settlement is voluntary and fair, and where the offences involved (IPC 341, 323, 506(1), among others) are conducive to compounding. They emphasize that continuing proceedings would be futile and constitute abuse of process, thus serving the ends of justice by quashing F.I.R. No.1490/2023 and the connected CC No.63/2024.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (through the defacto complainant’s participation) support quashing, noting the amicable settlement and lack of grievance. The State and the Court are urged to apply the guidelines binding Supreme Court authority to permit quashment where the settlement is genuine and fair, and to avoid wasting judicial resources on a matter that has been resolved consensually.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another[(2007) 4 CTC 769]PositiveCited as a guiding principle that settlement/compounding may justify quashing under 482 CrPC in cases not involving non-compoundable offences; used to support the court's approach.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another[(2012) 10 SCC 303]PositiveQuoted with approval by the Supreme Court to reinforce the settlement-based quashing approach.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab[(2014) 6 SCC 466]PositiveUsed to illustrate the Supreme Court’s stance on invoking inherent powers under 482 CrPC for quashing in the context of settlements.
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab[(2008) 4 SCC 582]PositiveCited for the pragmatic, common-sense approach to quashment in criminal proceedings arising from personal disputes and settlements.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25901 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ## `CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025` ``` CRIME NO.1490/2024 OF Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2023 IN CC NO.63 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I MUVATTUPUZHA ``` ## `PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:` ``` 1BABY VARGHESE @ KUNJUMON VARGHESE AGED 59 YEARS S/O. Y. BABY, PUTHEN VEEDU, ALENCHERY, YEROOR P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691312 2SUDHA VARGHESE AGED 55 YEARS W/O. KUNJUMON VARGHESE, PUTHEN VEEDU, ALENCHERY, YEROOR P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691312 3SKARIA AGED 68 YEARS S/O. SKARIA BABY, TULSI SANIDHYA CO-OP HSG SOCIETY, A1/102 CHIKLOLI, OPP SOUTH INDIAN COLLEGE, AMBERNATH WEST, ABARNATH, THANE, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 421501 ``` ``` 4SAJI SAM AGED 56 YEARS S/O V.T. SAMUEL, SAM VILLA, VALLIKALAYIL VTC, KOZHENCHERRY, NARANGANAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689642 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25901 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `BY ADV SHABEER ALI MOHAMED` ## `RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` - `2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686661` - `3 SUNU THOMAS AGED 50 YEARS W/O. FR. THOMAS CHAKIRIYIL, CHAKIRIYIL HOUSE, NIRAPPU BHAGAM, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686664` ``` BY ADV BIJU ABRAHAM SMT. SEENA C. (PP) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25901 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 24[th] 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], ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25901 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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 technicalities of the law.” ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 ``` ``` 5 2025:KER:25901 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2.In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.1490/2023 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.63/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha. As per the final report the offences alleged are under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 506(1), 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek 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 petitioners, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent no.3 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 statement recorded over the phone, was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 ``` ``` 6 2025:KER:25901 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` the defacto complainant are settled amicably and that the defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (3[rd] respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled amicably and that she does not want to proceed with the prosecution case, any further. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on her own volition. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 3[rd]respondent/defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. ``` ``` 5.In the light of the above referred facts, this ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25901 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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 petitioners 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 341, 323 and 506(1) 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-A1 F.I.R., Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.1490/2023 and all further proceedings in ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 20258 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25901 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` C.C.No.63/2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, are hereby quashed. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ``` JUDGE ``` ``` ska ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 313 OF 2025 ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` 2025:KER:25901 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 313/2025` ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` |`Annexure A1`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION`| |---|---| ||`REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1490 OF 2023 OF`| ||`MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION DATED 08.09.2023`| ||`WITH FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT OF THE`| ||`DEFACTO COMPLAINANT`| |`Annexure A2`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED`| ||`IN C. C. NO. 63/2024 OF JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS`| ||`MAGISTRATE COURT I, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 12-01-`| ||`2024`| |`Annexure A3`|`THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`| ||`DATED 08-01-2025 AFFIRMING THE ABOVE FACT`|