Crl.M.C.No.1092 of 2013 (against CC.445/2011 of J.M.F.C.-III, Neyyattinkara)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/10TH PHALGUNA 1934** **Crl.MC.No. 1092 of 2013 () -------------------------** **AGAINST CC.445/2011 of J.M.F.C.-III,NEYYATTINKARA** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 8 RESPECTIVELY:--------------------------------------------** **1. MAHIN S/O. ASANARUPILLAI, RESIDING A NEAR BALARAMPURAM HIGHER SCONDARY SCHOOL, KODINADA, VENGANOOR DESOM PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. TAUFEEQ S/O. SALIM RESING AT PATHIRYODU KOLATHINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU ANTHIYOOR DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. SHANAVAS S/O. SAINULABDHEEN RESIDNG AT VANIGAR THERUVU LAKSHAM VEEDU, THALAYAL DESOM ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. SHAMEER S/O. SADIQUE, RESIDING AT LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY VANIGAR STREET, BALARAMPURAM ATHIYANOOR VILAGE THALAYAL DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **5. SHAFIQ S/O. KARIM, RESIDING AT LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY VANIGAR STREET, BALARAMPURAM ATHIYANOOR VILAGE THALAYAL DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **6. SHAINSOM S/O. SALIM, RESIDING AT LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY VANIGAR STREET, BALARAMPURAM ATHIYANOOR VILAGE THALAYAL DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **7. BADUSHA S/O. PEERU MOHAMMED RESIDING AT LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY NO.20 VANIGAR STREET, BALARAMPURAM ATHIYANOOR VILAGE THALAYAL DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **(...........2)** **-: 2 :-** ## **8. MANOSOOR** **S/O. MAHEEM, RESIDING AT LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY VANIGAR STREET, BALARAMPURAM ATHIYANOOR VILAGE THALAYAL DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR** **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:-** **---------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. SUHAIL** **S/O. BADUSHA, RESIDING AT SUHAIL MANZIL BEHIND BALARAMPURAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KACHERITHOPPE, BALARAMPURAM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **01-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 1092 of 2013 ()** ## **-------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-** **ANNEXURE-A: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE BALARAMAPURAM POLICE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA.** **ANNEXURE-B: THE NOTARIZED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL.** **( TRUE COPY )** **PA TO JUDGE.** _**Kvs/-**_ ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.1092 of 2013. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1[st] March, 2013. ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 8 in CC.No.445/2011 on the files of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara arising from Crime No.141/2011 of Balaramapuram Police Station. The accusation against the petitioners is one of commission of offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427 r/w.Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, it was the instance of the second respondent that the aforesaid crime was registered. He is the person on whom hurt was caused. He was also restrained wrongfully and certain properties belonging to him were also stolen resulting to some loss or damage. In the above circumstances and by virtue of the provisions under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he is competent to **Crl.M.C.No.1092/2013.** 2 compound the offences under Sections 341, 323, 427 and 379 as against the petitioners. However, Annexure-A first report would reveal that commission of offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 149 and 324 are also alleged against the petitioners and obviously they are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The second respondent/defacto complainant has now filed Annexure-B sworn affidavit in this case to the effect that the entire disputes that led to the lodging of that complaint against the petitioners have been settled and compromised with the petitioners. It is also stated therein that in the above circumstance, he has got no objection in quashing Annexure-A final report and the entire proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent with Annexure-B affidavit would leave no room for any doubt regarding the settlement **Crl.M.C.No.1092/2013.** 3 arrived at between the parties. Evidently, in terms of the said settlement the entire disputes have been compromised. 4. As already noticed herein before, apart from the allegation of commission of compoundable offences Annexure-A also carries allegation of commission of non compoundable offences against the petitioners. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana** reported in **AIR 2000(3) SC 1386** , the provisions under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot limit or affect the powers of the High Courts to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to bring about termination of an unnecessary legal proceedings if the case concerned otherwise invites interference the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. There is no case for the prosecution that the unlawful assemblage was for commission of any graver offence than commission of the offences mentioned hereinbefore. When the third respondent settled the entire disputes with the petitioners there is no purpose in **Crl.M.C.No.1092/2013.** 4 compelling for continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Even if it is continued the chances for a successful prosecution against the petitioners is very bleak. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the case on hand is an appropriate case for invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts expatiated above reveal that continuation of proceedings in CC.No.445/2011 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara based on Annexure-A has become absolutely unnecessary. When that be the position, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** reported in **2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)** , the Apex Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings have become unnecessary and therefore it is the duty of this Court to prevent continuation of such an unnecessary proceedings against the petitioners, in the interest of justice. In the said circumstance, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. ## **Crl.M.C.No.1092/2013.** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Annexure-A final report in Crime No.141/2011 of Balaramapuram Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in CC.No.445/2011 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara based on the same as against petitioners are hereby quashed. **C.T.RAVIKUMAR,** (Judge) **Kvs/-**