Crl.M.C. No. 7307 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/16TH KARTHIKA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 7307 of 2016 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 675/2016 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-7: ------------------------- 1. SOORAJ WARD MEMBER, POTTATHODI PANAYUR, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD. 2. RAMACHANDRAN K. @ CHANDRAN S/O.VELU, KALLIVALLAPPIL HOUSE, PANAYUR, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD. 3. PRASAD S/O.RAVI, THOTTUVAKKATHU HOUSE PANAYUR, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD. 4. VENU S/O.RAVUNNI, OLLIKKARA HOUSE, PANAYUR, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD. 5. VINOD KUMAR @ VINU S/O.RAMAN, CHERAYIL PADI HOUSE PANAYUR, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD. 6. MANI KANDAN @ RAJAMANI S/O.MUNDAN, CHERAYIL PADI HOUSE, PANAYUR, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD. 7. HARIDASAN @ SUNDARAN S/O.MUNDAN, PANAYUR, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SHORNUR POLICE STATION PALAKKAD-679122. CONTD... :2: Crl.MC.No. 7307 of 2016 () --------------------------- 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 3. RAMACHANDRAN AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LAKSHMI OLINKARA HOUSE, PANAYUR P.O., VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-678552. R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR) R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 7307 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS : -------------------- - ANNEXURE -1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 675/2016 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION - ANNEXURE-II TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 7307 of 2016** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of November, 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 petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 7 in Crime No. 675 of 2016 of Shornur Police Station registered at the instance of the 3[rd] respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 341, 447, 427, 506 (i), 294 (b) r/w Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object trespassed into the residential home of the 3[rd] respondent and after abusing him committed mischief. Crl.M.C. No. 7307 of 2016 2 ## 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress his submission . 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. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. - 7.I have considered the submissions . Crl.M.C. No. 7307 of 2016 3 ## 8.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 : _“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.”_ 9.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_ Crl.M.C. No. 7307 of 2016 4 _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_ 10.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society .It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise , persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in Crl.M.C. No. 7307 of 2016 5 invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No. 675 of 2016 of Shornur Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE