Crl.M.C.No.5202 of 2019(A)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1941 ## Crl.MC.No.5202 OF 2019(A) TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A2 FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.168 OF 2017 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION PENDING AS (SC 779/2018 BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOYILANDI).* PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1,2 & 4 TO 6: - 1 MUHAMMED K.C, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. MOIDU K.C., KOKKODACHINTAVIDA (H), ERAMALA P.O., EDACHERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 673 001. - 2 HILLAR P. T. K., S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 22 YEARS, PUTHARATTATH THAZHA (H), KURINGALIYODU P.O., VATAKARA, 673 001. - 3 MUHAMMED ASHIR, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, CHETTINTAVIDA (H), NADAKKUNTHAZHE P.O., VATAKARA - 673 001. - 4 SHAHEEB YUSAF, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. YUSAF, ERAKKUNIYIL HOUSE, VALLIKKAD, MUTTUNGAL (P.O.), VATAKARA - 673 001. - 5 SAFARALI, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. ASEES, THAYYULLATHIL (H), VILYAPPALLY(P.O.), VATAKARA. BY ADV. SMT.K.REEHA KHADER ## RESPONDENTS /STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031. - (INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.168/2017 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT KOYILANDY). - 2 MUHAMMED NIHAD E.K., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, EDAKKANDY (H), KOTTAPPALLY P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKKODE, 673 001. - 3 NIJAS RAHMAN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RASHEED, MADATHIL PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, NADAKKU THAZHA P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 011. ## BY ADV. SRI.B.MUHAMMED SHAHEEL BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: > * The Lower Court Case details, “SC 779/2018 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Koyilandy” occurring in the cause title and in Annexures-A1 and A2 in appendix of the final order dated 9.8.2019 in Crl.M.C. 5202/2019 are corrected and substituted as “CP No.19/2018 of JFCM Court, Payyoli” as per order dated 28/10/19 in Crl.M.A.3/19 in Crl.M.C.5202/19. Assistant Registrar Crl.M.C.No.5202 of 2019 2 ## **ORDER** Invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code”, for short), the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the 2[nd] respondent, which is now pending on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Koyilandy as S.C. No.779 of 2018. In the above proceeding, they face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308, 506 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC. 2. The petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent are the students of MHES College, Cherandathur, pursuing their 3[rd] year degree course. The prosecution allegation is that on 28.02.2017, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, assaulted respondents 2 and 3 causing injuries. 3. Heard Smt.Reeha Khader K., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.B.Muhammed Shaheel, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri.B.Muhammed Shaheel, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, submitted that after much deliberations, the de facto complainant and the injured have resolved their disputes and differences with the petitioners and they have now decided that the continuance of criminal Crl.M.C.No.5202 of 2019 3 proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to the affidavits filed by the respondents 2 and 3 before this Court and asserts that they have no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. 5. Smt.Reeha Khader K., 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.5202 of 2019 4 **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 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 Crl.M.C.No.5202 of 2019 5 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 victims 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 instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any Crl.M.C.No.5202 of 2019 6 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-A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C. No.779 of 2018 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Koyilandy, are quashed. ## **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** KRJ //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.5202 of 2019 7 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME**| |---|---| ||**NO.168/2017 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION DATED**| ||**1.3.2017 PENDING BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS**| ||**COURT KOYILANDY AS SC 779/18.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME**| ||**NO.168/2017 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION PENDING,**| ||**BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT KOYILANDY**| ||**AS SC 779/18.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| CONTINUED AT PAGE NO......8......... Crl.M.C.No.5202 of 2019 8 The Lower Court case details, “ **Additional Sessions Court, Koyilandy as S.C. No.779 of 2018”** occurring in the 4[th] and 5[th] lines of 1[st] Paragraph at page 2 and in the 2[nd] and 3[rd] lines of the operative portion at page 6 of the final order dated 09.08.2019 in Crl.M.C. No.5202 of 2019 is corrected and substituted as “ **C.P.19 of 2018 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli”** as per order dated 28.10.2019 in Crl.M.A. No.3/2019 in Crl.M.C. No.5202 of 2019. Sd/- **DEPUTY REGISTRAR** ded/05.11.2019