Anish v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kurathikad Police Station, Alappuzha, and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6374 of 2016 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 155/2015 of J.M.F.C. - II, MAVELIKKARA DATED CRIME NO. 248/2014 OF KURATHIKAD POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------------- ANISH AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ASHRAF, ASHRAF MANZIL, DESHATHINAKAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.SANIL KUNJACHAN SMT.T.M.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KURATHIKKAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.682031 2. HARIKRISHNAN AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, RESIDING AT SREESAILAM, NADUVILE MURI, BHARANIKAVU, ALAPPUZHA 690503 3. SANDEEP AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.GOPI, RESIDING AT LAKSHAMVEEDU, NADUVILE MURI, PALLICKAL, BHARANIKAVU, ALAPPUZHA.690503 4. DR.P.T.MUTHULINGAM S/O.MOORTHI, RESIDING AT SARAVANA BHAVAN, MANJADITHARA MURI, BHARANIKAVU, ALAPPUZHA.690503 5. KAILAS AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN, RESIDING AT KAILASAM, NADUVILE MURI, PALLICKAL, BHARANIKAVU, ALAPPUZHA.690503 R2-5 BY ADV. SRI.T.PRAVEEN R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. T.R.RENJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 6374 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.248/2014 OF KURATHIKKAD POLICE STATION DATED 04.03.2014. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH THE 161 STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESSES IN C.C.NO.155 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA. ANNEXURE A3-A6 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO FIFTH RESPONDENT REGARDING COMPROMISE DATED 29.07.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.** **---------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 6374 of 2016 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of October, 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 petitioner herein is the 3[rd] accused in C.C. No. 155 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikara. He along with the other accused, are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 427, 447, 452 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4(1) (2) of the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 03.03.2014 at 9.00 **Crl.M.C.No.6374 of 2016** -2- pm, the petitioners herein trespassed into house of the 3[rd] respondent and attempted to assault him. When the 2[nd] respondent tried to intervene, the petitioners are alleged to have assaulted him with a beer bottle. Thereafter, the petitioners trespassed into the house of the 5[th] respondent and committed mischief. It is further alleged that while the respondents 2 and 3 were undergoing treatment in the hospital run by the 4[th] respondent, the petitioners trespassed inside the Saravana Nursing Home and are alleged to have assaulted respondents 2 and 3. - 4.It is based on the information furnished by the 2[nd] respondent that Annexure-1 Crime was registered, On completion of investigation, Annexure-2 final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. - 5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the party respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor. - 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits **Crl.M.C.No.6374 of 2016** -3- referring to Annexure-A1 FI Statement that initially only 2 persons were arrayed as accused, along with 4 persons who could be identifiable by sight. No reference is made to the petitioner herein in the FIR. Later, final report was laid in which the petitioner has been arrayed as the 3[rd] accused. Referring to the prosecution records, it is pointed out that none of the witnesses have stated that any role was played by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant as well as the victims have filed separate affidavits before this court, wherein it is asserted that the petitioner herein is totally innocent and he has not involved in the offence. - 7.The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get specific instructions in this regard. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurathikad Police station has filed a statement in which it is stated that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. However, it is submitted that the other accused are involved in several cases in various Police Stations and **Crl.M.C.No.6374 of 2016** -4- also having criminal antecedents. - 8.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 his submission. According to the learned counsel, none of the witnesses had stated anything to the investigating officer connecting the petitioner with the crime. 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. 9.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.6374 of 2016** -5- _“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.”_ ## 10.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_ _(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_ ## 11.In view of the affidavit filed by the party respondents and **Crl.M.C.No.6374 of 2016** -6- after having gone through the prosecution records, it appears to me that the continunance of criminal proceedings as against the petitioner herein will be a futile exercise. 12.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-B final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner, who is the 3[rd] accused in C.C. No. 155 of 2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II Mavelikkara are quashed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE