Madhusoodhana Padmanabhan @ Madhu v. State of Kerala and Chitra

``` CRL.MC NO. 1956 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24714 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1956 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.940/2021 OF Alappuzha South Police Station, Alappuzha ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED:` ``` MADHUSOODHANA PADMANABHAN @ MADHU AGED 50 YEARS S/O MAHALINGAM, LAKSHMI NIVAS, VADIPETTI P.O, MADHURA DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU -, PIN - 625205 ``` ``` BY ADVS. KRISHNANUNNI G.B. K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM) ANSU VARGHESE ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & VICTIM:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 2CHITRA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O UNNIKRISHNAN, CHITRALAYAM VEEDU, KALARACODE WARD, ALAPUZHA, KERALA -, PIN - 688003 ``` ``` BY ADV VIJAYAKUMAR V. SRI. E.C. BINEESH (PP) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1956 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24714 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. -----------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.1956 of 2025`** ``` ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 13[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. 1956 OF 2025 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24714 ``` **==> 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. 1956 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24714 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2.In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.940/2021 of Alappuzha South Police Station, Alappuzha, now pending as C.C.No.409/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha. As per the final report the offences alleged are under Sections 341, 354 and 324 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 defacto complainant/respondent no.2 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 was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner and the defacto ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1956 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24714 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` complainant are settled, pursuant to the amicable talks between the petitioner’s wife and the defacto complainant. The petitioner’s wife requested that the criminal proceedings against her husband need not be continued, and the petitioner has tendered an apology to the defacto complainant, accepting his mistake, written on a stamp paper, wherefore the defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the case 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 (2[nd ]respondent herein) as Annexure- A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled amicably. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no grievance against the petitioner and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1956 OF 2025 ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24714 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 2[nd]respondent/defacto complainant 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 offence under Section 341 is compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` CRL.MC NO. 1956 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24714 ``` ``` In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-1 Final Report in Crime No.940/2021 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.409/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha, are hereby quashed. ``` ## **`Sd/-`** ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ``` JUDGE ``` ``` ska ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1956 OF 2025 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` 2025:KER:24714 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1956/2025` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO. 409/2022 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT – I, ALAPUZHA Annexure A2THE FIS AND FIR IN CRIME NO. 940/2021 OF ALAPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION Annexure A3. AN AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT STATING THAT SHE HAS NO OBJECTION IN QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER ```