Abdul Salam vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No.61/2022 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thrissur, arising out of Crime No.666/2019 of Thrissur Town West Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 405, 415, 417, 120(b) and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3rd respondent is the defacto complainant.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

I have perused Annexure A5 affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.61/2022 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thrissur, are quashed.

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.