SULFI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in Annexure-A1 FIR & FIS in Crime No.1391/2015 of Nilambur Police Station, Malappuram, registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A & 406 of the Indian Penal Code , which led to the pendency of Annexure-A2 final report in L.P.No.24/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nilambur. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2nd respondent and the petitioner have entered into Annexure-A3 agreement of settlement and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against him.

(2.) Though notice has been duly served on R-2, there is no appearance for that party. The learned Public Prosecutor was also requested to get instructions and is submitted that the Investigating Officer has conducted an enquiry and taken the statement of R-2, wherein she has now stated that she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioner/accused and that she has no objection for the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings in the instant case.

(3.) In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C ., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment.