Crl.M.C. No. 5475 of 2024

``` 2025:KER:24403 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 5475 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.2151/2012 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM IN CC NO.1004 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ``` ## **`KOLLAM`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5:`** |**`1`**|**`ANIL KUMAR`**| |---|---| ||**`AGED 49 YEARS`**| ||**`S/O. APPUKUTTAN ACHARI, VILAYIL VEEDU,`**| ||**`THRIKKOVILVATTOM, KANNANNALLOOR CHERI, KOLLAM DISTRICT,`**| ||**`PIN - 691576`**| |**`2`**|**`PRADEEP`**| ||**`AGED 51 YEARS`**| ||**`S/O. RAGHAVAN, MOHANAVILASAM VEEDU, THRIKKOVILVATTOM`**| ||**`CHERI, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691576`**| |**`3`**|**`SAJIN`**| ||**`AGED 31 YEARS`**| ||**`S/O. SHANAVAS, SIJI MANSIL, KANNANNNALLOOR,`**| ||**`THRIKKOVILVATTOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691576`**| |**`4`**|**`SUDHI`**| ||**`AGED 33 YEARS`**| ||**`S/O. HEMA MALINI, ATHAM HOUSE, THRIKKOVILVATTOM,`**| ||**`KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691576`**| |**`5`**|**`AJIMSHA @ SOOPPAN`**| ||**`AGED 31 YEARS`**| ||**`AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. SHARAFUDHEEN, CHANTHAPURAVIDAM`**| ||**`HOUSE, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691576`**| ||**`BY ADVS.`**| ||**`BINU GEORGE`**| ||**`HEMALATHA`**| ||**`AMANTA MATHEW`**| ``` Crl.M.C.No.5475 of 2024 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24403 ``` - 2 - **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 ANOOP`** ``` AGED 39 YEARS ``` ``` S/O RAJU, RAJANI MANDIRAM, NEAR IDAYANKAVU, PUNUKANNOOR CHERI, ALUMMOODU P.O, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691577 ``` ``` 3SOUMYA AGED 37 YEARS W/O. RAJEEV (LATE), SOUMYA BHAVAN, KANNANALLOOR CHERI, KANNANALLOOR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691576 ``` ``` 4SUSHEELA AGED 73 YEARS W/O. RAJU, SOUMYA BHAVAN, KANNANALLOOR CHERI, KANNNANALLOOR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691576 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR G.S. FOR R2 TO R4 ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.5475 of 2024 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24403 ``` - 3 - **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.5475 of 2024 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 20[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], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of sanctioning invocation of ``` `2025:KER:24403` - 4 - **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.M.C.No.5475 of 2024 ``` ``` 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.” ``` ``` 2.In the facts at hand, petitioners are accused nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.2151/2012 of Kottiyam Police Station, Kollam, now pending as C.C.No.1004/2014 before the Judicial ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.5475 of 2024 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24403 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 5 - ``` First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. As per the final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 506(ii) and 354, read with Section 149 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 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant and respondents 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 and victims. The said direction was complied and their statements (respondents 2 to 4) were recorded and handed over, except for the statement of CW2 (the injured), who has since passed away. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners, the defacto complainant and respondents 3 and 4 (victims) are settled amicably and that, they are not interested to proceed with the case. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.5475 of 2024 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24403 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 6 - ``` Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2[nd] respondent herein) as Annexure-A7, wherein he would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled out of the Court. This Court also perused Annexure- A8 and Annexures-A9 affidavits sworn to by respondents 3 and 4 (victims), wherein they would also vouch the factum of settlement claimed by the petitioners. They would also swear in their affidavits that they have no grievance against the petitioners and have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The affidavit is 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 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 petitioners ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.5475 of 20242025:KER:24403 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 7 - ``` 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 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 in Crime no.2151/2012 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1004/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam, are hereby quashed. ``` ## **`Sd/-`** ``` C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ## **`JUDGE`** ``` SKP ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.5475 of 2024 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24403 ``` - 8 - **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5475/2024`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES:`** ``` ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 2151/2012 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION ``` - **`ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 2151/2012 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION`** - **`ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZAR IN CRIME NO. 2151/2012 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION`** - **`ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE WITNESSES IN CC. NO. 1004/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, KOLLAM`** - **`ANNEXURE A5 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 15/11/2012 OF ANOOP.`** - **`ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 25/06/2024 ISSUED BY NEDUMPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH`** - **`ANNEXURE A7 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.06.2024`** - **`ANNEXURE A8 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.06.2024`** - **`ANNEXURE A9 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.06.2024`** ## **`RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL`** ## **`TRUE COPY`** ## **`P.A. TO JUDGE`**