Baleed and Others v. State of Kerala

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 14TH BHADRA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.4915 OF 2019(D)** **SC 82/2015 OF ADDITIONAL ASST.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY** **CRIME NO.467/2014 OF Edakkad Police Station , Kannur** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:** |**1**|**BALEED (1ST ACCUSED)**| |---|---| ||**AGED 31 YEARS**| ||**S/O. RASAK, ALLA MANZIL, MAMMAKKUNNU,**| ||**KADAMBOOR P.O.,**| ||**KANNUR 670 663.**| |**2**|**ASHIQUE, 3RD ACCUSED,**| ||**AGED 31 YEARS**| ||**S/O. ASHARAF,**| ||**PALLIYATHU,**| ||**MAMAKKUNNU, KADAMBOOR P.O.,**| ||**KANNUR-670 663**| |**3**|**RIYAS, (4TH ACCUSED)**| ||**AGED 31 YEARS**| ||**S/O. AMBDU,**| ||**ADAM HOUSE, NR PODUVACHERY PALLY,**| ||**KADAMBOOR P.O.,**| ||**KANNUR 670 663.**| |**4**|**MANAF K.P., (5TH ACCUSED)**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS**| ||**S/O. MOOSA, FOUZIYA MANZIL, MAMAKKUNNU,**| ||**KADAMBOOR P.O.,**| ||**KANNUR - 670 663.**| |**5**|**SHEREEF,**| ||**AGED 30 YEARS**| ||**2ND ACCUSED AND ACCUSED IN LPC 16/2015 OF ACJM**| ||**THLASSERY),**| ||**S/O. HAMEED,**| ||**CHALIL HOUSE, MAMAKKUNNU, KADAMBOOR P.O.,**| ||**KANNUR-670 663.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.MANU.M.THOMAS SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR** Crl.MC.No.4915 OF 2019 2 ## **- RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.**| |**2**|**SHAMIL.A.K., S/O.HAMEED,**| ||**AYICHOTH HOUSE, MAMAKKUNNU,**| ||**KADAMBOOR P.O., KANNUR 670 663.**| ||**R2 BY ADV. K.ROOPESH**| **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.No.4915 OF 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. The case against the petitioners 1, 3 to 5 is pending as S.C. No.82 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery. As the 2[nd] petitioner was not available, the case against him was included in the list of long pending cases and is pending as L.P. No.16 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. In the above proceeding, the accused face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427, 326, 308 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners herein along with rest of the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter, assaulted him causing injuries. 3. Heard Sri.Manu M.Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Roopesh.K, the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondent submitted that after much deliberations, the victim has resolved his disputes and Crl.MC.No.4915 OF 2019 4 differences with the petitioners and he has now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to the affidavit filed by the victim before this Court and asserts that he has no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victim 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 a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of resolution of disputes Crl.MC.No.4915 OF 2019 5 between the offender and the victim have been laid down by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr** .[1] ; **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another[2]** ; **Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another[3]** ; **Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another[4]** and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others[5]** . 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 had also > 2 [(2013) 4 SCC 58] > 3 [(2014) 6 SCC 466] > 4 [(2017) 9 SCC 641] > 5 [(2019) 4 SCALE 200] 1 [(2012) 10 SCC 303] Crl.MC.No.4915 OF 2019 6 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 victim has been recorded by the investigating officer and that he has asserted that it is not in his 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 one, even if Crl.MC.No.4915 OF 2019 7 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 victim 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 A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners 1, 3 to 5 now pending as S.C. No.82 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery, and against the 2[nd] petitioner now pending as L.P. No.16 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery are quashed. **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,** **JUDGE** IAP **//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE** Crl.MC.No.4915 OF 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF FIR NO.467/2014 DATED 17.5.2014 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR.** **ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.467/2015 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR. ANNEXURE A3 NOTARY ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.7.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** NIL