Dr Kauser Edappagath, J
1. This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 3 Final Report in Crime No.1998/2017 of Palarivattom Police Station on the ground of
settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 500 and 509 of IPC, Section 120(o) of Kerala Police Act and Section
66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act.
4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel. The affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.R.Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.S.Anil (Padinjarekota), the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and
3 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent Nos..2 and 3 would show that the entire dispute between the
parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further. The learned
Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was
also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.
7. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
[(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others[ (2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court by invoking
S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between
themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of
justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.
8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings
pursuant to Annexure 3. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the
pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).
For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is
allowed. Annexure 3 Final Report in Crime No.1998/2017 of Palarivattom Police Station hereby stands quashed.
