The petitioners herein are the accused Numbers 1 and 2 in S.C 262/2010 of the Court of Session, Kozhikode. The seven accused in the said case faced trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Koyilandy on charge under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326 and 308 r/w Section 149 of IPC. On trial the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused numbers 3 to 7 not guilty, and accordingly they were acquitted. The accused Numbers 1 and 2 were found guilty under Sections 326 and 308 IPC. On conviction thereunder they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each under Section 326 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for another period of three years each under Section 308 IPC. They were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each under Section 326 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the accused numbers 1 and 2 preferred appeal before the court of Session as Crl.A 491/2013, and the same is now pending before the court of Session. Pending the proceedings in appeal the parties came to settlement amicably on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides. Now the accused seek orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing the whole prosecution including the Crl. M.C No. 4382 of 2014 2 proceedings in appeal, on the ground that continuance of the proceedings further in the present situation will cause harm and hardship to both sides, and that the complainant who sustained injuries in the alleged incident has no grievance or complaint now. Crime in the said case was registered on the complaint of one Denson. He is the first respondent in this proceeding. He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has amicably settled the whole dispute with the accused, and that he has no grievance or complaint now. In so many decisions including Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] and Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another [2014 (2) KLJ 252], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and laid down some guidelines, that even in cases involving non compoundable offences where disputes are purely personal in nature, and does not involve any public interest or public issue, the High Court can act under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash prosecution; whatever be the stage of the proceeding if the parties have really settled the whole dispute, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, or will cause hardship to the parties. In Shiji Vs. Radhika, 2011 (4) KLT 682 SC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even at the appellate stage the High Court can quash prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and such a course alone is possible when the court of Session cannot quash prosecution otherwise than as appellate court. When non Crl. M.C No. 4382 of 2014 3 compoundable offences are involved, and the conviction is under challenge, the appellate court cannot quash prosecution as court of appeal, except on merits. So the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court can act under Section 482 Cr.P.C even at the appellate stage and can quash prosecution, which the appellate court not normally do. In this case I am well satisfied that the parties have really settled the whole dispute, and that continuance of the proceedings further will definitely do harm and hardship to both sides. When the parties have resolved the whole dispute forever it would be unjust and inappropriate to continue the proceedings. Applying the decisions and guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am inclined to quash the proceedings in this case, in view of the amicable settlement made out of court. In the result, this petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings against the petitioners in S.C 262/2010, involving conviction and sentence under Sections 326 and 308 IPC, and also the criminal appeal brought by them before the court of Session, Kozhikode as 491/2013 will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from such prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.
sab P.UBAID, JUDGE