Rajan, Manikannan and Ramesh v. State of Kerala and Parvathy

**==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:23944 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946** **CRL.MC NO. 3088 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.497/2020 OF Kozhinjampara Police Station, Palakkad** **AGAINST CC NO.135 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHITTUR** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:** - **1 RAJAN AGED 58 YEARS S/O LATE KUNJUNNI, 58 YEARS, MUNSIFFCHULLAKAM, VELANTHAVALAM, KOZHINJAMAPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678555** **2 MANIKANNAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN 47 AGED YEARS, KARAMPATTA, KOZHINJAMAPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678555** - **3 RAMESH AGED 31 YEARS MUNSIFFCHULLAKAM, VELANTHAVALAM, KOZHINJAMAPARA, , PALAKKAD, PIN - 678555** **BY ADVS. SARATH M.S. ARJUN C BHASKAR ATHUL KRISHNA A.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/INJURED/CW2:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** Crl.M.C.No. 3088 of 2024 **2025:KER:23944** ..2.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **2 PARVATHY AGED 69 YEARS W/O ADACHAMI, 69 AGED YEARS, KIZHAKEKAD, VALARA, NADUKAL, KOZHINJAMAPARA, , PALAKKAD, PIN - 678555** **BY ADVS. GOKUL DEVIS VISHNU C. BHASKAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI. E.C. BINEESH – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No. 3088 of 2024 **2025:KER:23944** **==> picture [59 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **O R D E R** _Dated this the 17[th] day of March, 2025_ 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 Crl.M.C.No. 3088 of 2024 **2025:KER:23944** **==> picture [59 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R in a crime alleging offences under Section 307, which is a henious 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.M.C.No. 3088 of 2024 **2025:KER:23944** **==> picture [59 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **2.** In the facts at hand, petitioners are accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.497 of 2020 of Kozhinjampara Police Station, Palakkad, now pending as C.C.No.135/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur. The offences alleged are under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(i), read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of the 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 respondent no.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. **4.** When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court perused Annexure-A3 death certificate of the defacto complainant in the said case. This Court therefore directed to record the statement of the CW2/injured, who is the wife of the defacto complainant. The said direction was complied and Crl.M.C.No. 3088 of 2024 **2025:KER:23944** ..6.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** the statements of the wife and son of the defacto complainant, were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners, the injured and her son, are settled and that they are disinterested to continue with the prosecution case, any further. The instant Crl.M.C was filed with their knowledge, wherefore, they have 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 CW2/injured (2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A4, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that she has no intention to continue with the prosecution case, against the petitioners. The 2nd respondent would also swear that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioners and 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 Crl.M.C.No. 3088 of 2024 **2025:KER:23944** **==> picture [59 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** counsel for the 2nd respondent 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 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 the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 506(i) are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. Crl.M.C.No. 3088 of 2024 ..8.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:23944** In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 F.I.R, Annexure-A2 Final Report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.135/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur, are hereby quashed. Sd/- **C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE** TR Crl.M.C.No. 3088 of 2024 **2025:KER:23944** ..9.. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3088/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF FIR IN THE ABOVE CRIME DATED 11/08/2020** **Annexure A2 THE TRUECOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE AND MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN C.C. NO. 135/2021 ON THE FILES OF FIRST ADDITIONAL SESSION COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 23/01/2021** **Annexure A3 THE TRUECOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE IS DATED 10/06/2021 IS PRODUCED** **Annexure A4 THE 2ND RESPONDENT HAS SWORN TO AN AFFIDAVIT PROVING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT IN THE MATTER AND THE SAID AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/02/2024**