Crl.MC No. 4829 of 2019

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.4829 of 2019** **CC NO.1780/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NEYYATTINKARA (TEMPORARY)** **CRIME NO.828/2012 OF Kovalam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 10:** - **1 DHARMARAJ, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.VAMADEVAN, NIDHIN MANGALAM VEEDU, SAMUDRA BEACH ROAD, AVADUTHURA DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **2 MADHURAJ @ MADU, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.VAMADEVAN, SARADHA BHAVAN, NEDUMOM, THOZHICHAL DESOM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **3 SWAYARAJ, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.VAMADEVAN, SWATHI VILLA, SAMUDRA BEACH ROAD, AVADUTHURA DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **4 AJAY GOSH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ANIRUDHAN, MANI NIVAS, SAMUDRA BEACH ROAD, AVADUTHURA DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **5 PRASAD, AGED 49 YEARS, NELLIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELLAR, PACHALLOOR DESOM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **6 JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.APPU, IDATHATTIL VEEDU, NEDUMAM, THOZHICHAL DESOM, THIRUVALLOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **7 ANIL @ ANI, AGED 45 YEARS,** - **S/O.DAMODARAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VAZHAMATTOM, PACHALLOOR DESOM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** CRL.MC:4829/2019 2 - **8 MANOJ, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MANIYAN, KANNAMCODE ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, VELLAR, PACHALLOOR DESOM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **9 ANIL, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.MANIYAN, PATTUKUNNU LAKSHOM VEEDU COLONY, PACHALLOOR, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **10 PREM @ CHINACHU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, MANALUVILA PATTUKUNNU VEEDU, VELLAR, PACHALLOOR DESOM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **BY ADVS.SRI.G.SUDHEER SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)** ## **RESPONDENTS /STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURES/CW2 TO CW5:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.** - **2 MANULAL, S/O.MANOHARAN, AGED 26 YEARS, VAYALINKARA AKKARAVILAKOM VEEDU, KANNAMCODE, NEDUMAM, VIZHINJAM DESOM AND VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695521.** - **3 ARUNKUMAR @ UNNI, S/O.SREEKALA, AGED 27 YEARS,** **KALLUMALA PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR SAMUDRA CATERING COLLEGE, AVADUTHURA DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695521.** - **4 VIJITH, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, VAYALINKARA AKKARAVILAKOM VEEDU, AVADUTHURA DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695521.** - **5 SREEJITH, S/O.SREEKALA, AGED 25 YEARS, KALLUMALA PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR SAMUDRA CATERING COLLEGE, AVADUTHURA DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695521.** - **6 ARUN @ KOCHUMON, S/O.AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, PATTAKUNNU LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, VELLAR, PACHALLOOR DESOM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE,** CRL.MC:4829/2019 3 ## **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695521.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.S.K.VINOD** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI. RAMESH CHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.MC:4829/2019 4 ## **ORDER** Invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code”, for short), the petitioners seek to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by respondents 2 to 6 herein, which is now pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara as C.C. No.1780 of 2017. In the above proceeding, the petitioners face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 323, 341, 506(i) of the IPC. 2. From the prosecution records, it is discernible that the allegation against the petitioners is that on 19.05.2016 at about 6.30 p.m., the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, attacked respondents 2 to 6 causing injuries. 3. Heard Sri.G.Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.S.K.Vinod, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 6, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri.S.K.Vinod, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, submitted that after much deliberations, the de facto complainant has resolved his disputes and differences with the petitioners and he has now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. CRL.MC:4829/2019 5 He refers to the affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent before this Court and asserts that he has no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. He also points out that the injured witnesses, who have been arrayed as respondents 3 to 6, have also filed separate affidavits recording that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings. 5. Sri.G.Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victims 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 CRL.MC:4829/2019 6 a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of resolution of disputes between the offender and the victim have been laid down by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr** . [(2012) 10 SCC 303]; **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another** [(2013) 4 SCC 58]; **Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2014) 6 SCC 466]; **Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others** , [(2019) 4 SCALE 200]. 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 CRL.MC:4829/2019 7 had also 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 statements of the victim and the injuried have been recorded by the investigating officer and that they have asserted that it is not in their 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 CRL.MC:4829/2019 8 instant one, even if 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 victims 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-A final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.1780 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** krj CRL.MC:4829/2019 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.828/2012 OF KOVALAM POLICE STATION PENDING AS C.C.NO.1780/2017 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (TEMPORARY COURT), NEYYATTINKARA.** **ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 17.5.2019.** **ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 17.5.2019.** **ANNEXURE D AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA (DUBAI) (U.A.E.) DATED 9.6.2019.** **ANNEXURE E AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 17.5.2019.** **ANNEXURE F AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 17.5.2019.**