Crl.M.C. Nos. 3132/2012 & 3641/2012 (Kerala High Court)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3132 of 2012 (B)** **-------------------------------------[IN C.C.NO.103/2010 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,NEDUMKANDOM, CRIME NO.31/2010 OF SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT] ...........** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 3:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. SHAJI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, KOONANICKAL HOUSE, PARATHODE VILLAGE, MAVADI KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** ## **2. JIJI, AGED 39 YEARS,** - **S/O.VARGHESE, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, MAVADI KARA, KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **3. BINOLIN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.BABU, OZHAKKAL HOUSE, PARATHODE VILLAGE, PARATHODE KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR).** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **----------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. JINEESH, AGED 29 YEARS,** - **S/O.MATHEW, VARICKAYIL HOUSE, PARATHODE VILLAGE, 40 ACRE KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN- 685 681.** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H. JASMINE.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-12-2012, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO.3641/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.3132/2012-B:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE-1: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. NO.103/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NEDUMKANDAM.** ## **RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **Prv.** ## **T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.** **-----------------------------------------** **Crl. M.C. Nos.3132 & 3641 OF 2012 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012.** ## **O R D E R** Both these Crl.M.Cs have been filed seeking for identical reliefs namely, to quash Annexure-1 charge sheet. The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3132/2012 are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.103/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam and the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3641/2012 are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.101/2010 of the same court. 2. The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3132/2012 point out that they are falsely implicated in Crime No.31/2010 of Santhanpara Police Station, Idukki District. Therein the offences alleged are under Section 452, 294(b), 324, 323, 427 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged therein that the occurrence on 22.01.2010 happened due to political rivalry. The alleged offence is that they attacked the de facto complainant. It is pointed out that they are **Crl.M.C.Nos.3132 & 3641/2012** **2** active workers of different political parties and only because of the political rivalry, the case happened to be registered. Another case was also happened to be registered as Crime No.33/2010 involving the de facto complainant namely, Sri.Paulraj. Now both these cases have been re-registered as C.C.No.103/2010 and C.C.No.101/2010. The disputes between the parties have been amicably settled also. 3. It is now pointed out that after recording the fact that the disputes have been settled between the parties, the same was informed to the court. What remains is the questioning of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Since some of the offences are non compoundable, the court is not permitting the petitioners to compound the offence. It is averred that compounding of the offence between the petitioners and the de facto complainant will not affect the interest of the society. The same is the plea raised in Crl.M.C.No.3641/2012 by the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.101/2010. 4. Heard parties. Learned counsel appearing for the **Crl.M.C.Nos.3132 & 3641/2012** **3** respective parties in both Crl.M.Cs submitted that the disputes have been settled between the parties and therefore, this Court may exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as otherwise it will cause acute hardship to the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is a settlement between the parties. The petitioners point out that this Court can permit the petitioners to compound the offence in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in _**Shiji** vs._ _**Radhika**_ (2011 (4) KLT 682 (SC)) and that of this Court in _**Ettoop** vs._ _**Kunhikannan**_ (2005 (2) KLT 429). 5. In _**Shiji** vs._ _**Radhika**_ (2011 (4) KLT 682 (SC)), the offences alleged were under Sections 354 and 394 of IPC. In paragraph 8 of the said judgment, the Apex Court was of the view that the High Court is entitled to quash the proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the **Crl.M.C.Nos.3132 & 3641/2012** **4** very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice. The Apex Court relied upon various judgments while considering the said issue and finally in paragraph 13, it has been held that “it is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under S.320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under S.482 Cr.P.C”. Finally it is also ## observed in paragraph 14 as follows: “.....That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some “misunderstanding and misconception” will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose....” and finally the proceedings were quashed. 6. In _**Ettoop** vs._ _**Kunhikannan**_ (2005 (2) KLT 429), this Court, after finding that the parties have settled their disputes, quashed the proceedings by invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, this Court exercised the power evidently in **Crl.M.C.Nos.3132 & 3641/2012** **5** the light of the settlement between the parties. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court namely, _**Dimpey Gujral, W/o.Vivek Gujral & Ors.** vs._ _**Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.**_ (2012 (11) Scale 589), the above principles were reiterated. 7. Herein, on consideration of the matter, it can be seen that the political rivalry has resulted in registration of crimes and both parties have now realized and have settled their disputes. It is in that regard, they are seeking the aid of this Court to quash the complaint itself to meet the ends of justice. 8. In the light of the scenario as pointed out above by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, there will not be any purpose in proceeding with the matter especially as the parties figure as complainant and accused in both the cases. Therefore, actually the two cases are registered as case and counter case. No serious offence against the society at large is also involved in the matter. In the light of the above, the Crl.M.Cs are allowed and the **Crl.M.C.Nos.3132 & 3641/2012** **6** proceedings in C.C.No.103/2010 and C.C.No.101/2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam are quashed. The petitioners will produce the certified copy of the order before the court below. ## **T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE** smp