A K Basheer vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No. 1186/2018 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

The  petitioner  is  the  accused  No.  2.  The  2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 441, 506, 34 of IPC red with Section 3(1)(e) (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989

The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

I have heard Sri. J. Ahilash the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.B.R. Vijayababu, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.

The Supreme Court in Lovely Salhotra & another v. State NCT of Delhi & another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1666/2017 dated 10.4.2017) was pleased to quash the proceedings as against one of the accused alone on the ground of settlement. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceedings holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. This Court in Sreejith v. State of Kerala and another (Crl.3343/2021 dated 10.8.2021) was also pleased to quash the proceedings as against one of the accused alone on the ground of settlement.

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further.

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No. 1186/2018 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station as against the petitioner alone stands hereby quashed.