AMARESHNATH P.P. v. STATE OF KERALA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7866 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 335/2014 of ASST. SESSIONS COURT, PAYYANNUR CRIME NO. 174/2013 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION , KANNUR** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.2, 4, 5, 6 & 7:** **---------------------------------------------------** ## **1. AMARESHNATH P.P.** **S/O.KESAVAN, AGED 24, PATTUVUM AMSOM PARKOOL, AREYIL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **2. SAJITH A.** **S/O.VENU, AGED 23, AANAYODAN HOUSE, PATTUVUM AMSOM, AREYIL, PARKOOL, AREYIL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **3. NEELANKOL CHANDRAN** **S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 52, NEELANKOL HOUSE, PATTUVUM AMSOM MURIYATHOD, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **4. N.KANNAN** **S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 43 NEELANKOL HOUSE, MURIYATHOD, PATTUVUM AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **5. DENNIS** **S/O.KUNJIRAMAN, AGED 35 NERICHI HOUSE, MURIYATHOD PATTUVUM AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SMT.P.SHEEBA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED:** **--------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER** ## **TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **2. RAMESHAN C.** **S/O.ANANDAN, AGED 47 YEARS, CHEMMANCHERY HOUSE, PATTUVAM AMSOM, MULLOL DESOM TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670321.** ## **3. RAKESH** **S/O.RAJAN, AGED 27 YEARS KANDOTH HOUSE, MADHAVA NAGAR PATTUVUM AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT-670321.** ## **4. VYSHAKH** **S/O.RAMESHAN, AGED 20 YEARS CHEMMANCHERY HOUSE, PATTUVAM AMSOM, MULLOL DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT-670321.** **R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-112016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7866 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **----------------------AANEXURE 1 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE IN CR.NO.174/13 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION (IN SC 335/14 OF ASST.SESSIONS COURT, PAYYANNUR). ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY R2. ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY R3. ANNEXURE 4 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY R4. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES ------------------------------------------** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS PS TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7866 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of November, 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.2, 4, 5, 6 and - 7 in S.C. No.335 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur. They stand indictedunder sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(1), 427, 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 14.2.2013 at about - 9.00 p.m., the petitioners along with the other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained respondents 2 to 4 and thereafter assaulted them with Crl.M.C.7866/2016 2 weapons causing injuries. - 4.After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional court. The case against the petitioners herein were separately committed and the same is pending as S.C.No.335 of 2014 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur. - 5.Heard the submissions advanced. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Crl.M.C.No.6967 of 2016 has been preferred by the 1[st] accused to quash the proceedings pending against him as S.C.No.607 of 2016 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur. Crl.M.C.No.6988 of 2016 has been preferred by the 3[rd] accused in the aforesaid Crime to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.736 of 2015 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur. According to the learned counsel, the matters have been amicably resolved and hence the continuance of proceedings will serve no purpose. Crl.M.C.7866/2016 3 - 7.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress their submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 8.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. - 9.I have considered the submissions . ## 10.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the Crl.M.C.7866/2016 4 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 : _“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.”_ 11.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: _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _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_ Crl.M.C.7866/2016 5 _(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_ 12.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 13.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-1 Crl.M.C.7866/2016 6 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending S.C. No.335 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps