ASEEM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Sec. 482 of the Code in respect of offences which are not compoundable in terms of Sec. 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 sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R in a crime alleging offences under Sec. 307, which is a henious and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 here below:

(2.) In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.542 of 2020 of Valiyamala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as C.C.No.686 of 2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nedumangad. As per the Final report, the offences alleged are under Ss. 447, 354-A(1)(iii) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks 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 petitioner; learned counsel for the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.