Arun alias Arun, Jisin, Arun M.S. and Vishnu Mohanan v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/22ND CHAITHRA 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1447 of 2013 () --------------------------CRIME NO. 1319/2012 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ## PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:- 1. ARUN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, THANNIPPILLY HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, EDAVANAKKAD P.O. - 682 502. 2. JISIN, S/O.JACOB, KANAKKASSERY HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, EDAVANAKKAD P.O. - 682 502. 3. ARUN M.S., S/O.SATHYAN, MALIEKKAL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O. - 682 509. 4. VISHNU MOHANAN, S/O.MOHANAN, KOOVAPRAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERAI P.O. - 683 514. BY ADV. SRI.C.T.JESTIN ## RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NARAKKAL POLICE STATION NARAKKAL THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MATHEW, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.PYLEE, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, MALIPURAM P.O. - 682 511. ADDL. 3. MRS.JINNY, W/O.MATHEW, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, MALIPURAM P.O., PIN-682 511. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 10.4.2013 IN CRK.M.A.NO.3080 OF 2013 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1447 OF 2013) R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1447 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS --------------------------- ANNEXURE A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1319/2012 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2. AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **========================== CRL.M.C. No.1447 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** The petitioners are accused in crime No.1319 of 2012 of Narakkal Police Station registered alleging commission of offences under sections 452, 354, and 506(i) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioners/accused trespassed into the house of the second respondent and attacked him and his wife/third respondent and committed the alleged offences. The second respondent is the defacto complainant at whose instance Annexure-A1 FIR was registered. This petition has been filed seeking quashment of Annexure-A1 FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners on the strength of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3. It is stated that the daughter of respondents 2 and 3 and the first petitioner had fallen in love and it is their love affair that led to the incident that caused the registration of the aforesaid crime. It is submitted that the petitioners **Crl.M.C.1447/13** 2 are all students undergoing professional courses. It is further stated that taking into account the circumstances involved in this case and taking into account the prospects of the petitioners as also the daughter of respondents 2 and 3, the petitioners as also respondents 2 and 3 have taken a decision to settle the issue amicably and in fact, settled the issues that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime. Annexure-A2 is the affidavit sworn in to that effect, by the second respondent. The wife of the second respondent, the woman on whom criminal force was used, was impleaded as additional third respondent in this case. Pursuant to order dated 1.4.2013, the second respondent appeared before this Court and thereafter, on orders, the third respondent also appeared. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 identified them as persons who executed the vakalath as respondents 2 and 3. The second respondent endorsed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 to the effect that the entire disputes that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime have been amicably settled. Taking note of the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioners, I am inclined to accept the **Crl.M.C.1447/13** 3 contentions of the petitioners as also respondents 2 to 3 that the case involved is essentially private and personal in nature. Taking into account the nature of the alleged offence and the factum of settlement evident from Annexure-A2 and also the submissions made on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, I am of the view that continuation criminal proceedings against the petitioners pursuant to Annexure-A1 FIR has become absolutely unnecessary. It is also to be noted that in the circumstances obtained in this case, even in case the criminal proceedings are compelled to be continued, the chance for a successful prosecution against the petitioners is very bleak. In such circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings based on Annexure-A1 would be a wasteful exercise. In the decision in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** reported in [ **2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)],** the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the High Courts to prevent continuation of the criminal proceedings which became absolutely unnecessary, in the interest of justice. In view of the discussions as above, I am of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings based on Annexure-A1 against the petitioners **Crl.M.C.1447/13** 4 has become absolutely unnecessary and as such, liable to be prevented. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR laid in crime No.1319 of Narakkal Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are hereby quashed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1447/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **Crl.M.C.1447/13** 6