The petitioners in these two proceedings seek orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashing the two prosecutions, which happened to be registered as case and its counter case in connection with an incident of assault and open fight made by two groups of persons. On the complaint of one Edwin Jackson that the petitioners in Crl.M.C 4042 of 2014 assaulted him and his friends and inflicted injuries on their body with weapon Crime No.811 of 2013 was registered in Payangadi Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. Some among the petitioners herein also sustained injuries in the said incident. On the complaint made by one Asif, that the petitioners in Crl.M.C. 4052 of 2014, assaulted him and his friends and inflicted injuries on his body with weapon Crime No.812 of 2013 was also registered as counter case in the same police station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. Now both sides seek orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashing the prosecution on the ground that they have come to amicable settlement out of court on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides, and that continuance of proceedings will cause harm and hardship to both sides. Now, it is submitted that in Crime No.811 of 2013, the police has already submitted final report in court and the committal court has taken cognizance as C.P. 81 of 2014. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that investigation in the other crime is also over, but final report is yet to be submitted. As regards the settlement reported in court, the State has nothing to say. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 SC ] and in Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab and another[ 2014 (2) KLJ 252], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can act under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quash prosecution, be it at the crime stage or at the trial stage , if the parties have really settled the whole dispute, or
continuance of criminal proceeding will not serve any purpose, or will otherwise cause harm and hardship to both the parties. Here I find a case where the parties have really settled the whole dispute, and have resolved all their disputes forever on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides. The persons who sustained injuries on either side are respondents in these proceedings. They have filed affidavit to the effect that the whole dispute stands settled with the accused, and that they have no grievance or complaint. In both the cases, I find, on a perusal of the case records that Section 308 of Indian Penal Code was incorporated in the F.I.R by the police on the basis of a hypothetical statement. I find nothing definite to attract a prosecution under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code in these cases. Anyway, the whole dispute stands settled, and I am well satisfied that there is a real settlement amicably. Applying the guidelines made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, these two prosecutions can be closed.
In the result, both the petitions are allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners in Crl.M.C No.4042 of 2014 in C.P.81 of 2014, and also the F.I.R and other proceedings as the against the petitioners in Crl.M.C No.4052 of 2014 in Crime No.812 of 2013 of Payangadi Police Station will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the petitioners/accused will stand released from such proceedings. The bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioners will stand discharged.
ma /True copy/ Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE P.S to Judge