“1. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, whereby Criminal MC No. 3715 of 2010 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings in FIR No. 6 of 2010 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 394 IPC, has been dismissed. The High Court has taken the view that the offences with which the appellants stand charged, are not “personal in nature” so as to justify quashing the pending criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the first informant-complainant and the appellants. The only question that, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the criminal proceedings in question could be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the settlement that the parties had arrived at. xxx xxx xxx 19. Coming to the case at hand, we are of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the access to the two plots which are adjacent to each other. It was not a case of broad daylight robbery for gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some “misunderstanding and misconception” will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eyewitnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 CrPC could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the
