The petitioners herein are the six accused in C.C.No. 266/2009 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. Crime in the said case was registered under Sections 143,147,148,341,323 and 324 IPC, on the complaint of one Muhammed Shafi. Investigation revealed the offence under Section 326 IPC also. Accordingly, the police submitted final report in court after investigation under Sections 143,147,148, 323,324 and 306 read with Section 149 IPC. All the six accused entered appearance in the trial court, pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the learned Magistrate, and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined seven witnesses during trial, and also marked Exts.P1 to P3. Pending trial, and after examination of the material witnesses, the petitioners and the defacto complainant settled the whole dispute amicably out of court. In such a situation, the petitioners made application before the learned Magistrate as Crl.MP No. 4313/2014 to recall PW2 and PW3 in view of a compromise made out of court. The learned Magistrate Crl.M.C.. No. 6226/2014 2 dismissed the said application on 04.09.2014, on the ground that such a settlement cannot be accepted when trial is midway, and also when the major offences are non-compoundable under the law. The learned Magistrate also observed that settlement pending proceedings, and request to recall the witnesses to record such settlement when the offences are not non- compoundable under the law, is not a healthy practice. Now, the petitioners seek orders from this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing the prosecution, on the ground of amicable settlement out of court. Of course, the learned Magistrate rightly disallowed the application because settlement or composition in a non- compoundable offence cannot be accepted by the trial court. But this court can exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the prosecution, if the parties have really come to terms amicably, and continuance of the proceedings further in such a situation will cause harm and hardship to both sides. In so many decisions including Gian Sing Vs. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [2014(2) KLJ 252], the Honourable Supreme Court has made some guidelines for exercise of powers Crl.M.C.. No. 6226/2014 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can act under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the prosecution; be it at the trial stage, or at the crime stage, or even at the appellate or revisional stage, or even when trial is midway, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably, and continuance of prosecution in such a situation will cause harm and hardship to the parties, or will not serve any purpose. I find that this is a fit case where these guidelines can be applied, because I find a real and genuine settlement between the parties. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C.No. 266/2009 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioners will stand discharged.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE