## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN**
**FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/16TH PHALGUNA, 1935**
## **Crl.MC.No. 1477 of 2014 ()**
**--------------------------CC. NO.6/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA.**
**........**
**PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.7 TO 9, 14:**
**---------------------------------------------------------**
**1. BIJU KOOKA, S/O.BHASKARAN, MURIYIL IDAKKALAYIL VEEDU, NARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**
## **2. ANOOP, S/O.BHADRAN,**
**KOLLAPPARAMBIL VEEDU, NJARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**
**3. AJITH, S/O.SADHASIVAN, KOLLEERETHU VEEDU, NJARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**
**4. ANOOP, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN,**
- **PALANILKKUNNATHIL HOUSE, KAVIPPADI, NJARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR, SRI.V.V.RAJA.**
## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED WITNESS & STATE:**
- **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------**
**1. ABHILASH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.NANU, PUNNASSERIL HOUSE, PUNNASSERI COLONY, NJARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 501.**
**2. ANOOP, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.NANU,**
- **PUNNASSERIL HOUSE, PUNNASSERI COLONY, NJARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689 501.**
**3. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, THELLIYILETHU HOUSE, PUNNASSERY COLONY, NJARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689 501.**
**Crl.MC.No. 1477 of 2014**
**4. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, THELLIYILETHU HOUSE, PUNNASSERY COLONY, NJARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689 501.**
## **5. STATE OF KERALA,**
- **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.**
**R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN. R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. P.**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**rs.**
## **Crl.MC.No. 1477 of 2014**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-**
**ANNEXURE A1. COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.531/2008 DATED 29.09.2008 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2. COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN FIR NO.531/2008 OF THE ARANMULA POLICE STATION DATED 09.11.2008. ANNEXURE A3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2011 IN CRMC NO.3900 OF 2011.**
**RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.**
**//TRUE COPY//**
## **P.S. TO JUDGE**
**rs.**
## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.**
................................................. Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2014
.................................................. Dated this the 7[th] day of March, 2014.
## **O R D E R**
This is an application filed by the accused in C.C.No.6/2012, who are the original accused Nos.7 to 9 and 14 in Crime No.531/2008 of Aranmula police station now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused Nos. 7 to 9 and 14 in Crime No.531/2008 of Aranamula police station now pending as C.C.No.6/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. The case was registered on the basis of a statement given by defacto complainant/injured against 18 accused persons including the present petitioners and a crime was registered as Crime No.531/2008 of Aranmula police station as Annexure A1 and after investigation, Annexure A2 final report was filed alleging the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 324 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was originally taken on file as C.C.No.38/2009 and accused Nos 1 to 6, 10 to 13, 15 to 18 had appeared in that case and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the case against them was quashed by this
Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2014 2
Court as per Annexure A3 order in Crl.M.C.No.3900/2011. Now the dispute between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 who are Cws 1 to 4 were also settled and there is no possibility of conviction. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they could not approach the lower court for compounding the case. They have no other option except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:
_In the above said circumstance it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure A2 final report in Crime No.531/2008 of Aranmula Police Station and all other proceedings in C.C.No.6/2012 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Pathanamthitta by allowing this Criminal Miscellaneous Case in the better interest of justice and equity._
3. Respondents 2 to 5 appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and they have no objection in quashing the proceedings. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement there is no possibility of conviction and prayed for allowing the application.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court, submitted that the present petitioners are accused in several cases and those cases arose out of a clash between Dy.F.I and RSS activists and opposed the
3
Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2014
application for quashing.
5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant, Annexure A1 crime was registered against 18 accused persons including the petitioners and after investigation Annexure A2 final report was filed. It is also an admitted fact that except the present petitioners, case against other accused persons was quashed by this Court as per Annexure A3 order on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. It is true that now a days without any reason or motive unmerited political clashes are occurred between lower wing of the political parties. Youngsters are being spoiled on account of the provocation made by the political bosses without knowing the consequences of the acts or its impact on their future. It goes beyond their hands and at last some of them become criminals as well. Some of them even involve in such activities under the cover of political ideology. However, considering the fact that in this case the matter has been settled between the workers of two political parties and brought harmony in the locality and the case against other accused persons has been quashed by this Court on the ground of settlement, there is no possibility of any
4
Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2014
conviction being entered against the petitioners even if trial is allowed to proceed with.
6. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
“But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
7. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also in view of the fact that case against most of the accused were quashed by this Court on the ground of settlement and it
Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2014
5
is alleged that political harmony has been restored in the locality due to the settlement, this Court feels that this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 has to be invoked to quash the proceedings as no purpose will be served in allowing the prosecution to continue in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. So this petition is allowed and further proceeding in C.C.No.6/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Pathanamthitta as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for necessary further action immediately.
## **Sd/-**
**K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.**
cl
/true copy/
P.S to Judge
Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2014 6
