Abhi and others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.3783 OF 2019(C) CRIME NO.799/2018 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD** |**PETITIONERS**<br>**:**|**PETITIONERS**<br>**:**|| |---|---|---| |**1**||**ABHI**| |||**AGED 28 YEARS**| |||**S/O.RAGHAVAN, MUTTUMTHALA, AJANUR,**| |||**KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-671 315.**| |**2**||**RAJEEVAN**| |||**AGED 37 YEARS**| |||**S/O.KRISHNAN, KOLAVAYAL HOUSE, MUTTUMTHALA,**| |||**AJANUR, KANHAAGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-671 315.**| |**3**||**VINODAN.K.**| |||**AGED 36 YEARS**| |||**S/O.KOTTAN, MUTTUMMAL, KOLAVAYAL P.O.,**| |||**CHITTARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-671 315.**| |**4**||**LIJU KOLAVAYAL**| |||**AGED 33 YEARS**| |||**S/O.KUNHIKKORAN, KOLAVAYAL P.O.,**| |||**CHITTARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-671 315.**| |**5**||**AJITH**| |||**AGED 26 YEARS**| |||**S/O.NARAYANAN, MUTTUMTHAL, AJANUR,**| |||**KANHANAGD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-671 15.**| |**6**||**PRAMOSH**| |||**AGED 27 YEARS**| |||**S/O.DAMODARAN, MUTTUMMAL, KOLAVAYAL P.O.,**| |||**CHITTARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-671 315.**| |**7**||**VIVEK**| |||**AGED 27 YEARS**| |||**S/O.KARUNAKARAN, MUTTUMTHALA, AJANUR,**| |||**KANHANAGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-671 315.**| |**8**||**SREEJITH.K**| |||**AGED 27 YEARS**| |||**S/O.SHEELAVATHI, MUTTUMTHALA, AJANUR,**| |||**KANHANAGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-671 315.**| Crl.MC.No.3783 OF 2019 2 **9 SOUMESH.K AGED 30 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, KOLAVAYAL HOUSE, AJANUR, KANHNAGAD VILALGE, KASARAGOD-671 315.** **BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 SUSHIN AGED 22 YEARS S/O.SUNIL.V.G., RESIDING AT SREELAYAL HOUSE, AJANOOR KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 513.** **3 BABEESH BABU AGED 20 YEARS S/O.BABU.S., RESIDING AT PUZHAYEDATH HOUSE, BALLA BEACH, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 513.** **BY ADVS. SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM** ## **SRI. RAMESH CHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.No.3783 OF 2019 3 ## **ORDER** Invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for short), the petitioners have approached this Court and have sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the 2[nd] respondent herein, in Crime No.799 of 2018 of Hosdurg Police Station. In the above proceeding, the petitioners face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 308 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. It is now submitted that the proceedings are pending as C.C.No.42 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. 2. From the prosecution records, it is discernible that the allegation against the petitioners is that on 25.10.2018 at about 18.00 hours, the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the party respondents and attacked them causing injuries. 3. Heard Sri.Nirmal V.Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Rahul Sasi, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri.Rahul Sasi, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, submitted that after much deliberations, the victims have resolved his disputes and differences with the petitioners and they have now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to Crl.MC.No.3783 OF 2019 4 the affidavit filed by the victim before this Court and asserts that he has no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. He also points out that the injured witness, who have been arrayed as 3[rd] respondent, has also filed an affidavit recording that he has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings. 5. Sri.Nirmal V.Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victims and the offenders, the possibility of conviction is bleak and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will only inure to put both the parties to oppression and prejudice. Both sides submit that the wrong is basically private in nature and no public interest is involved. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that the petitioners are not involved in any other crimes. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings against them in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 8. The factors that are to be borne while exercising powers conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the Code in the context of considering a prayer Crl.MC.No.3783 OF 2019 5 for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of resolution of disputes between the offender and the victim have been laid down by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr** . [(2012) 10 SCC 303]; **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another** [(2013) 4 SCC 58]; **Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2014) 6 SCC 466]; **Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others** , [(2019) 4 SCALE 200]. It was held that the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court, as recognized and preserved by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is primarily to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The guiding light behind the exercise of inherent power is to do real, complete and substantial justice. It was also held that while examining the prayer for quashing of a non compoundable offence, on the basis of settlement of the dispute between the wrongful doer and the victim, this Court must necessarily consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and oblique and further as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would lead to oppression and prejudice. The courts were reminded that the antecedents of the accused, possible lack of bona fides, his past conduct, including his earlier abscondance, and as to how he had managed to enter into a compromise with the victims are some of the factors which are to reckoned while exercising this extraordinary power. The Crl.MC.No.3783 OF 2019 6 Apex Court had also cautioned that this Court, when called upon to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to bring the criminal case to an end on the basis of settlement, must steer clear of intervention in heinous or serious offences, including those involving mental depravity, as indeed economic offences affecting the financial and economic well being of the State, such as murder, attempt to murder, extortion, forgery, rape, dacoity, financial or economic frauds, cases under Arms Act, etc. Those offences were held as having a tendency to have a serious impact upon the society and continuation of trial thereof is essential due to overriding element of public interest. It was also held that the mere fact that the police have incorporated a grave offence in the FIR or the final report would not be a deterrent if the records reveal that the ingredients of the offence are not made out. 9. In the light of the above principles, I have perused the prosecution records. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. I have also noted the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the statements of the victims have been recorded by the investigating officer and that they have asserted that it is not in their best interest that the prosecution proceedings continue. Having considered the case in hand on the tourchstone of the aforementioned parameters, I am of the view that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant Crl.MC.No.3783 OF 2019 7 one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the victims and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.799/2018 of Hosdurg Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.42 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, are quashed. **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,** **JUDGE** **//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE** IAP Crl.MC.No.3783 OF 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS & FIR IN CRIME NO.799 OF 2018 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.04.2019.** **ANNEXURE A3** **A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.04.2019.**