Ameer (2nd accused) v. State of Kerala and Harilal

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-09-22
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner in CC No. 1582/2009 are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashed the criminal proceedings (final report and proceedings in CC 1582/2009) against the petitioner; end of proceedings.”} }

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ameer

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Harilal

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Binu George
• Smt. Hemalatha

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. R. Rajesh (Pulikada)
• Public Prosecutor Sri. T.R. Renjith

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Ameer, the second accused in C.C. No. 1582 of 2009, pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class II, Kollam, challenging the continuation of proceedings arising from Crime No. 126/2009 of Kottiyam Police Station. The prosecution alleges that on 16.02.2009 at about 6.30 pm, the 1st accused and the petitioner trespassed into the shop room of the de facto complainant, and the 1st accused is said to have inflicted injuries on the complainant’s forehead with a sword. It is further alleged that the accused abused the complainant and caused mischief to the tune of Rs. 4,000. The 1st accused was a juvenile at the time of the incident; Annexure 3 shows a JJB judgment dated 16.07.2011, where the juvenile was discharged after due admonition. The petitioner asserts that disputes have been settled and the victim has sworn an affidavit absolving the petitioner, justifying exercise of the court’s inherent power to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Respondent-State, through the Public Prosecutor, opposes on the ground of gravity of offences. The court considers the settlement and the victim’s affidavit, observing that, following Gian Singh, ex debito justitiae powers can be used to secure ends of justice where continued proceedings would be futile and the chance of conviction is negligible. The petition is allowed and the final report in CC 1582/2009 is quashed, with ongoing proceedings dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 323, 324, 294(b), 452 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPCSection 320 CrPC (for compounding)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ex debito justiciae
Ends of justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner urged that the juvenile status of the 1st accused at the time of the incident, the settlement between the parties, and the victim’s affidavit absolving the petitioner justify invoking the court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings, citing Shiji @ Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab as authority for quashing to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, argued that the gravity and nature of the offences do not permit quashing; though the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the court should exercise caution and not defeat the ends of justice by quashing in a case of serious offences.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shiji @ Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another	2011(10) SCC 705	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the legal backdrop; not the primary basis for the disposal, which relies on Gian Singh.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012(10) SCC 303	Positive	Directly relied upon as controlling authority for quashing criminal proceedings where settlement exists and ends of justice require it.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014(6) SCC 466	Mentioned Only	Cited in the broader jurisprudence on inherent powers and settlement, but not the decisive authority for the result.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/31ST BHADRA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 5778 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST CC 1582/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM CRIME NO. 126/2009 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM** **PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:** **-------------------------** **AMEER AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.AMANULLA KUNNUVILA KIZHAKKATHIL, KIZHAVUR CHERI THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.BINU GEORGE SMT.HEMALATHA** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:** **--------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. HARILAL** **AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI B.S.SADANAM, KIZHAVOOR CHERI, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH(PULLIKADA) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5778 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.NO.126/2009 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 126/2009 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ST 10/2010 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KOLLAM.** **ANNEXURE 4 AFFIDAVIT DT.20-8-2016 SWORN BY R2.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL** **-----------------------** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **kp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 5778 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 22[nd] September, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 2.The petitioner is the 2[nd] accused in C.C.No.1582 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class II, Kollam. He is proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294(b), 452 and 506 - (ii) read with Section 34 of the IPC. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 16.2.2009 at - 6.30 pm, the 1[st] accused and the petitioner had trespassed into the shop room of the 2[nd] respondent herein and 1[st] accused is alleged to have inflicted injuries on the forehead of the 2[nd] respondent with a sword. It is Crl.M.C. No.5778 of 2016 -2- further alleged that the accused had abused the 2[nd] respondent and had also committed mischief to the tune of Rs.4,000/-. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 1[st] accused against whom overt act was alleged was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence. The case against him was proceeded with and by Annexure A3 judgment dated 16.7.2011, the juvenile was released after due admonition. It is also submitted that after Annexure A3 judgment was rendered disputes have been settled between the petitioner and 2[nd] respondent herein. - 5.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent that an affidavit has been sworn to by the victim completely absolving the Crl.M.C. No.5778 of 2016 -3- petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the private respondent, the inherent power can be exercised by this Court and the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in **Shiji @ Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another** [2011(10) SCC 705], **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012(10) SCC 303] and **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] to contend that this Court will be justified in exercising inherent powers in a case of this nature to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 7.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the nature and gravity of offence are such that this Court will not be justified in exercising its discretionary powers. Crl.M.C. No.5778 of 2016 -4- However, it is submitted that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents. - 8.I have considered the rival submissions and have taken note of the fact that the disputes have been compromised and the victims have completely absolved the petitioner. The final report also reveals that specific overt acts are levelled against the 1[st] accused against whom proceedings have come to a termination as is evidenced from Annexure-3 judgment. The affidavit sworn to by the party respondent makes it abundantly clear that they do not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should continue. - 9.The legal position is no longer _res integra_ that the inhereint powers of this Court enshrined under Section 482 of the Code is distinct from the power of a criminal court to compound the offence under Section 320 of the Code. The powers can be exercised _ex debito justitiae_ to Crl.M.C. No.5778 of 2016 -5- render real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. However, the plenitude of the power under Section 482 of the Code by itself makes it obligatory for this Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. As held in the precedents cited above, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor, the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled can be taken note of by this Court and proceedings can be quashed if it ultimately be only an exercise in futility and if justice demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored. As held in **Gian Singh** (supra) this Court within the framework of its inherent power can quash the criminal proceeding if it is satisfied on the face of such settlement that there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be the casuality and Crl.M.C. No.5778 of 2016 -6- ends of justice shall be defeated. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.1582 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class II, Kollam are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-23.9.16