Abhishek and others v. State of Kerala and Delbin P.C.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2016/28TH VAISAKHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2744 of 2016** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **S.C.NO.101/2015 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CRIME NO. 1154/2013 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION , KANNUR** **-------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :** ## **------------------------------------------** **1. ABHISHEK, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN, SREESHYLAM, MOOLAKKULAM, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **2. THANSEER,** - **AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. ARSHAD, T.P.HOUSE, CHAVASSERI AMSOM, CHAVASSERI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **3. NIDHINKAMATH,** - **AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. MOHANDAS, DEVIKRIPA, MALLANNUR, SIVAPURAM AMSOM, SIVAPURAM P.O., MALLANNUR, NIRMALAGIRI, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **4. NIVIN MANUVAL,** - **AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. MANUVAL, VATTUKULATHIL HOUSE, PAYAM AMSOM, VATTIARA, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **5. MATHEW SEBASTIAN @ PRAVEEN** - **AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN,** - **NAYIPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, ERUVESSI AMSOM, CHEMBERI, KAYALAMPARA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **6. MANU JOSEPH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, PLAMPARAMBAN HOUSE, ARALAM AMSOM, CHEDIKULAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **..2/-** **..2..** **Crl.MC.No. 2744 of 2016** **---------------------------------------** **7. ALBIN MATHEW, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. MATHAYI, CHALUKKATH HOUSE, KELAKAM AMSOM, CHETTIAMPARAMB, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **8. PRASIDH S.GEORGE, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, PUSHPAKKUNNEL HOUSE, NUCHYAD AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.SHANAVAS NALAKATH RANDUPURAYIL SMT.RENY ANTO** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE :** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. DELBIN P.C., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. CHERIYAN, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, KELAKAM AMSOM, CHETTIYAMPARAMBU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 560.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **Crl.MC.No. 2744 of 2016** ## **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE 1 THE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.1154/2013 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1154/2013 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING COMPROMISE DATED 26.09.2015.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** Msd. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J. -------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2744 of 2016 -------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of May, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the Code ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 8 in Crime No.1154/2013 of Kuthuparamba police station, registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein alleging offence punishable under S.143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326, and 308 r/w S.149 of the IPC. - 3.After completion of investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same is now pending as S.C.No.101/2015 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery. Crl.M.C.No.2744 of 2016 : 2 : - 4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent. 5.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent, that the incident had occurred when the petitioners and the de facto complainant were students of the Nirmalagiri College. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the 2[nd] respondent herein is arrayed as the 5[th] accused in Crime No.1153/2013 of Kuthuparama police station which crime was registered at the instance of one Vyshakh. According to the learned counsel, the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and that they do not intent to proceed with the prosecution. Annexure III is the affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent evidencing the fact that the matter has been settled once and for all and the parties have decided to bury the hatchet. According to the learned counsel, the dispute is purely personal in nature and therefore, would Crl.M.C.No.2744 of 2016 : 3 : not affect public peace or tranquility and prays that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote harmony. 6.The learned public prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that crimes have been registered as against some of the petitioners while they were students of the Nirmalagiri College. It is further submitted that some of the cases have ended in acquittal. It is further submitted that the state has no serious objection in acting on the basis of the affidavit in view of the fact that the petitioners were students at the commission of the offence and being embroiled in criminal prosecution will be detrimental to their future . 7.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : Crl.M.C.No.2744 of 2016 : 4 : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: _“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:_ _29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code.No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties_ Crl.M.C.No.2744 of 2016 : 5 : _have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution._ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 9.Tested in the anvil of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility and when it is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice, the inherent powers under S.482 can very well be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. In such cases persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 10.In the case on hand, though offence under S.326 is also Crl.M.C.No.2744 of 2016 : 6 : incorporated in addition to S.308 of the IPC, the records reveal that the de facto complaiant had only sustained a fracture to his nasal bone. It is submitted at the bar that the said injury was sustained and the de facto complainant fallen down and was not as a result of any injuries that was inflicted. I take note of the observation of the Apex Court in **Yogendra Yadav and Another V State of Jharkhand AIR 2014 SC 3055** where it was held that prosecution can be quashed taking note of the settlement arrived between the parties to promote harmony. - 11.In view of the above, it is held that the continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility and the criminal proceedings pending as against the petitioners can be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under S.482 of the Code. - 12.In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2744 of 2016 : 7 : S.C.No.101/2015 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery which arose from Crime No.1154/2013 of Kuthuparama police station shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.** Bb _[True copy]_ _P.A to Judge_