Kerala High Court
Aswathy vs State Of Kerala on 11 March, 2025
CRL.MC NO. 1898 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:22710
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1898 OF 2025
CRIME NO.170/2020 OF Mangalapuram Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.627 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT (ATROCITIES & SEXUAL VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
1 ASWATHY
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O LEJU, VADAKKUMKARA HOUSE,SASTHAVATTOM , VEYILOOR
P.O , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695584
2 VIMAL RAJ
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. BABU , AGED 35 YEARS, LAKSHMI NIVAS SASTHAVATTOM ,
VEYILOOR P.O , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695584
BY ADVS.
CHRISTINE MATHEW
NIHAL MOHAMMED S.
ABESH ALOSIOUS
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
CRL.MC NO. 1898 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:22710
PIN - 682031
2 VISHAK
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O MANIYAN RESIDING AT VISHNU VILASOM VEYILOOR P.O ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695584
BY ADV RAPHAEL THEKKAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1898 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:22710
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1898 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th 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
CRL.MC NO. 1898 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:22710
Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466],
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
CRL.MC NO. 1898 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:22710
realities and bereft of the technicalities of the
law."
2. In the facts at hand, petitioners are the
accused persons in Crime No.170/2020 of Mangalapuram
Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as
S.C.No.627/2024 before the Additional District and
Sessions Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram. As per the
final report the offences alleged are under Sections 75
and 89 of Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of
Children Act, 2015 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The
petitioners seek 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 petitioners,
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
CRL.MC NO. 1898 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:22710
said direction was complied and the statement was handed
over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the
issues between the petitioners and the defacto
complainant are settled amicably and that the defacto
complainant and the 1st petitioner have dissolved their
marriage by way of divorce. The defacto complainant has
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 defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as
Annexure-3, wherein he would unequivocally state that
the disputes have been amicably settled. The defacto
complainant would also swear that he has no grievance
against the petitioners and that he has no objection in
quashing the criminal proceedings against the
petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on his own
volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This
Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement
arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for
CRL.MC NO. 1898 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:22710
the 2nd 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 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.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure-1 F.I.R., Annexure-2 Final Report in Crime
No.170/2020 and all further proceedings in
CRL.MC NO. 1898 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:22710
S.C.No.627/2024 before the Additional District and
Sessions Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram, are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
ska
CRL.MC NO. 1898 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:22710
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 170 /2020 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE
STATION DATED 28.02.2020
Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
170 /2020 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 03.03.2020
Annexure 3 A DULY ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE BY
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.01.2025
