Ajmal, Harshad and Rebin Renjan Joseph v. The State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.3491 of 2019** **AGAINST C.P.NO.137/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ADOOR** **CRIME NO.1957/2018 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:** - **1 AJMAL, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.RASHEED, RESIDING AT THADATHIL THEKKETHIL VEEDU, CHEERAKONIL, PAZHAKULAM PADINJARU MURI, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-690561.** - **2 HARSHAD, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.KABEER, RESIDING AT AMBALATHUM MELETHIL VEEDU, PAOUDASAN MUKKU, PAZHAKULAM PADINJARU MURI, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-690561.** - **3 REBIN RENJAN JOSEPH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.RENJAN JOSEPH, RESIDING AT CHARIVUPURAYIDATHIL VEEDU, ANAPPARA, VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., CHITTAR VILLAGE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689663.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.T.S.SARATH** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031.** - **2 VISHNU, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SURESH, NOW RESIDING AT THE HOUSE OF SASEENDRAN PILLAI, KODUNTHARA, PATHANAMTHITTA FROM VISHNU BHAVAN, NEAR MUSLIAR COLLEGE, MYLADUMPARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689663.** CRL.MC:3491/2019 2 |**3**|**ALEKH ANAND, AGED 17 YEARS,**| |---|---| ||**S/O.ANILKUMAR, RESIDING AT ANANDAPURI VEEDU,**| ||**VADAKKE ANJILIMOODU, PUTHUPALLY P.O., DEVIKULANGARA**| ||**VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690527,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER ANILKUMAR.**| |**4**|**ANILKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS,**| ||**S/O.ANANDAN, RESIDING AT ANANDAPURI VEEDU,**| ||**VADAKKE ANJILIMOODU, PUTHUPALLY P.O.,**| ||**DEVIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690527.**| |**5**|**SOBHA ANIL, AGED 49 YEARS,**| ||**W/O.ANIL KUMAR, RESIDING AT ANANDAPURI VEEDU,**| ||**VADAKKE ANJILIMOODU, PUTHUPALLY P.O.,**| ||**DEVIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690527**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.ANSU VARGHESE**| ||**R1 BY SRI. B. JAYASURYA SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**| **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.MC:3491/2019 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 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the 2[nd] respondent herein, which is now pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor as C.P. No.137 of 2018. In the above proceeding, they face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. From the prosecution records, it is discernible that the allegation is that on 19.05.2016 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the party respondents and attacked them causing injuries. 3. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Ansu Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri.Ansu Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, submitted that after much deliberations, the victims have resolved their disputes and differences with the petitioners and they have now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to the affidavit filed by the de facto complainant before this Court and asserts CRL.MC:3491/2019 4 that he has no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. He also points out that the injured witness, the 3[rd] respondent herein, is a minor and, therefore, his parents, who are respondents 4 and 5 herein, have filed separate affidavits stating that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings. 5. Sri. Manu Ramachandran, 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 the powers conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the Code in the context of considering CRL.MC:3491/2019 5 a prayer 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 victim are some of the factors which are to reckoned while exercising this extraordinary power. The Apex Court CRL.MC:3491/2019 6 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 statement 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 touchstone 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:3491/2019 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 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.P. No.137 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** krj CRL.MC:3491/2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1957/2018 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.P.NO.137/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE JFMC ADOOR. ANNEXURE A2 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 09.05.2019 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.05.2019 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4. ANNEXURE A4 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.05.2019 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5.**