Kerala High Court
Vishnu M.R vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2025
CRL.MC NO. 2271 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:30754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 2271 OF 2025
CRIME NO.173/2020 OF Peerumedu Police Station, Idukki
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.1026 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,PEERUMEDU
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
VISHNU M.R.
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. RAJENDRAN, MAKKALPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, MLAMALA
PUTHUVAL BHAGAM, THENGAKAL P.O., PEERMADE VILLAGE
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI, PIN - 685533
BY ADV ARUN KUMAR M.A
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 PRIYANKA PRASAD
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O. PRASAD M.P., MAKKALPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, MLAMALA
PUTHUVAL BHAGAM, THENGAKAL P.O., PEERMADE VILLAGE,
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI, PIN - 685533
BY ADV ROHIT LOBO
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. SANAL P, RAJ (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2271 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:30754
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
CRL.MC NO. 2271 OF 2025
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 7th day of April, 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. 2271 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:30754
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. 2271 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:30754
2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole
accused in Crime No.173/2020 of Peerumedu Police Station,
Idukki, now pending as C.C.No.1026/2020 before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Peerumedu. As
per the final report, the offences alleged are under
Sections 323 and 354 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/2nd respondent
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 complainant are
settled amicably and that the instant Crl.M.C was filed
with consent of the defacto complainant, wherefore, the
CRL.MC NO. 2271 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:30754
defacto complainant is disinterested to proceed further
with the prosecution case. 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 and that the
dispute between the parties stemmed from some
misunderstanding. The defacto complainant would also
swear that she has no surviving 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. This Court, is
therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is
genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the defacto
complainant/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
CRL.MC NO. 2271 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:30754
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 323 is compoundable, which is all the more
a reason to accept the compromise between the parties.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-
A1 F.I.R., Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.173/2020
and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1026/2020 of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Peerumedu, are
hereby quashed.
sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
ska JUDGE
CRL.MC NO. 2271 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:30754
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT ALONG WITH FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT
IN CRIME NO.73 OF 2020 OF THE PEERUMADE
POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT DATED
28/3/2020
ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC
NO 1026/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I PEERUMADE
DATED 31/7/2020
ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN INTO BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 24.02.2025
