Crl.M.C.No.1056 of 2025

Crl.M.C.No.1056 of 2025 -: 1 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28259 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1056 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1292/2024 OF NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5:`** - **`1 SARATH AGED 34 YEARS S/O VIJAYAN, RAMAKKALMEDU P.O, PARATHODU IDUKKI, KERALA, PIN - 685553`** - **`2 PRAVEEN GEORGE AGED 39 YEARS`** ``` BLOCK NO.366, CHOTTTUPARA P.O K.P COLONY, IDUKKI., PIN - 685552 ``` - **`3 LIBIN BABU, AGED 36 YEARS KALLAVILAYIL HOUSE, RAMAKKALMEDU P.O, IDUKKI, KERALA, PIN - 685553`** - **`4 ANAND GIREESH AGED 19 YEARS PUTHANVEED HOUSE, RAMAKALMEDU P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685553`** - **`5 ABIMANU, AGED 21 YEARS KRISHNAVILASAM HOUSE RAMAKKALMEDU P.O, IDUKKI DISRICT, PIN - 685553`** ``` BY ADV SURESH P.K. ``` Crl.M.C.No.1056 of 2025 -: 2 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28259 ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 ABDUL SHUKOOR @ MUHAMMED ABDUL SHUKOOR AGED 38 YEARS`** ``` S/O ABDUL KAREEM, PARALI HOUSE, MUTTOM METRO STATION THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, CHOORNIKKARA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683506 ``` - **`3 KABEER, AGED 50 YEARS`** - **`S/O ABDU, PARALI HOUSE, MUTTOM METRO STATION THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, CHOORNIKKARA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683506`** - **`4 SHIHAB, AGED 38 YEARS`** ``` S/O HAMSA, PARALI HOUSE, MUTTOM METRO STATION THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, CHOORNIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683506 ``` - **`5 SHIFA, (MINOR) AGED 14 YEARS`** ``` D/O SHIHAB, PARALI HOUSE, MUTTOM METRO STATION, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, CHOORNIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA-683506 ``` ``` REPRESENTED BY FATHER SHIHAB, S/O HAMSA, AGED 38 YEARS PARALI HOUSE, MUTTOM METRO STATION THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, CHOORNIKKARA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683506 ``` Crl.M.C.No.1056 of 2025 -: 3 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28259 ``` - **`6 MAFIDA, AGED 34 YEARS`** ``` D/O KOCHUNNI, PARALI HOUSE, MUTTOM METRO STATION THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, CHOORNIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683506 ``` ``` 7ZEENATH A.A, AGED 50 YEARS D/O KHADAR, PARALI HOUSE, MUTTOM METRO STATION, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, CHOORNIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683506 ``` - **`8 SALEEM, AGED 51 YEARS`** ``` S/O ABDU, PARALI HOUSE, MUTTOM METRO STATION THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, CHOORNIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683506 ``` - **`9 SHAILAJA, AGED 45 YEARS`** ``` D/O KUTTY, PARALI HOUSE, MUTTOM METRO STATION THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, CHOORNIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683506 ``` - **`10 SEENATH K.K AGED 55 YEARS`** ``` D/O KOCHUNNI PARALI HOUSE, MUTTOM METRO STATION THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, CHOORNIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN – 683506. ``` ``` BY ADVS.SHIRAS ALIYAR ``` ``` E.C BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.1056 of 2025 -: 4 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28259 ``` ## **O R D E R** 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 offence under Section 307, Crl.M.C.No.1056 of 2025 -: 5 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28259 ``` which is a henious and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 here below: _“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 the accused persons in Crime No.1292 of 2024 of Nedumkandam Police Station, Idukki. As per the F.I.R, the offences alleged are Crl.M.C.No.1056 of 2025 -: 6 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28259 ``` under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 324(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above crime, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. **3.** Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for respondents 2 to 10 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/2[nd] respondent and respondents 3 to 10/injured persons, were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners, the defacto complainant and respondents 2 to 10/injured are settled and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is Crl.M.C.No.1056 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, affidavits have been sworn to by the defacto complainant/2[nd] respondent and respondents 3 to 10/injured persons as Annexures-A3 to A11, wherein they would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that they are disinterested to proceed with the prosecution case against the petitioners. They would also swear that they have no further complaints against the petitioners and that they do not intend to proceed against the petitioners, any further. The affidavits are sworn to on their free will. Moreover, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 10 would submit that the quashment sought for can be allowed in view of the settlement arrived at. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. **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 Crl.M.C.No.1056 of 2025 -: 8 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28259 ``` 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 115(2) and 324(4) are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. **6.** In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in Annexure-A1 F.I.R in Crime No.1292/2024 of Nedumkandam Police Station, Idukki, are hereby quashed. Sd/- ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ww Crl.M.C.No.1056 of 2025 -: 9 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28259 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1056/2025`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 1292/2024 OF NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION DATED 28.12.2024 ANNEXURE A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME 1292/2024 OF NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION DATED 28.12.2024 ANNEXURE A3THE 2ND RESPONDENT SWORN TO AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.01.2025 ANNEXURE A4THE 3RD RESPONDENT SWORN TO AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.01.2025 ANNEXURE A5THE 4TH RESPONDENT SWORN TO AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.01.2025 ANNEXURE A6THE 5TH RESPONDENT SWORN TO AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.01.2025 ANNEXURE A7THE 6TH RESPONDENT SWORN TO AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.01.2025 ANNEXURE A8THE 7TH RESPONDENT SWORN TO AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.01.2025 ANNEXURE A9THE 8TH RESPONDENT SWORN TO AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.01.2025 ANNEXURE A10THE 9TH RESPONDENT SWORN TO AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.01.2025 ANNEXURE A11THE 10TH RESPONDENT SWORN TO AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.01.2025 ```