Crl.M.C.No.727 of 2013

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/15TH CHAITHRA 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 727 of 2013 () --------------------------** **AGAINST THE CP 40/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II, KANNUR IN CRIME NO.707/2012 OF VALAPPATANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO 1-7: ----------------------------** **1. DEEPESH E, S/O VIJAYAN, FATHIMA QUARTERS, KOTTAKKUNNU P.O, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT** **2. DILEESH E, S/O VIJAYAN, FATHIMA QUARTERS, KOTTAKKUNNU P.O, CHIRAKKA, KANNUR DISTRICT** **3. VIJIL @ BIJU, S/O RAVEENDRAN, KRISHNAKRIPA ONAPPERUMBA, P.O CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTIRCT** **4. ROSHIN A.V** **S/O ROY, AANDOOR HOUSE, A.K.G. ROAD P.O, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTIRCT** **5. SHINOI.K,** **S/O DIVAKARAN, VELUTHERI HOUSE, KOTTAKKUNNU P.O, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT** **6. MANU A,** **S/O SUMITHRAN, ARIPPA HOUSE, KOTTAKKUNNU P.O, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT** **7. VIGESH,** **S/O RAVEENDRAN, OLACHERY HOUSE, KOTTAKKUNNU P.O, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT** **BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN** **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------** **1. BABU M, S/O RAJAN MATTAPPALLI HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM KOTTAKKUNNU P.O, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT 670011** **(........2)** **-: 2 :-** **2. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION 670010 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH CORUT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 727 of 2013.** **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:-** **ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO 707/2012 OF VALPATTANAM POLICE STATION ISSUED TOT HE ACCUSED FROM THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTII, KANNUR IN C.P NO 40/2012..** **ANNEXURE A2: AFFIDAVIT SWEARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- nil.** **( TRUE COPY )** **PA TO JUDGE.** _**Kvs/-**_ ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.727 of 2013. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5[th] April, 2013. **O R D E R** The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime No.707/2012 of Valapattanam Police Station alleging commission of offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w.Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code. When this petition is filed, the committal proceedings against the petitioners are pending before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur as CP.No.40/2012. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that consequently the case against them were committed and taken on file as SC.No.921/2012 and was then, made over to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kannur. It is presently pending there. The gist of the allegation is that, on 3.6.2012 at about 7.30 pm. the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant/first respondent, namely, Deepesh and **Crl.M.C.No.727/2013.** 2 Dileesh viz., Petitioners 1 and 2 herein who are respectively accused Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid crime, attacked the defacto complainant in pursuance of their common object and caused injuries on him. Annexure-A1 is the charge sheet laid in the aforesaid crime. This petition has been filed seeking quashment of Annexure-A1 charge sheet and all further proceedings for committal before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur in CP.No.40 of 2012. As noticed herein before, subsequently the case against the petitioners was committed and it is taken on file as SC.No.921/2012 and is presently pending before the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kannur. The aforesaid prayers have been made on the strength of the settlement reached between the petitioners and the defacto complainant who is the first respondent herein. AnnexureA2 is the affidavit sworn in by the first respondent in this case. It is stated therein that the entire disputes led to the registration of the aforesaid crime have been settled **Crl.M.C.No.727/2013.** 3 between him and the petitioners and in the light of the said settlement he got no objection in quashing Annexure-A1 charge sheet and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It is evident from Annexure-A1 that the accusation against the petitioners includes commission of noncompoundable offences, as well. In the light of the provisions under Section 320, Cr.P.C. there is no question of granting permission for compounding offences which are not compoundable. In the decision **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana** reported in [2003(2) KLT 1062 (SC)] the Apex Court held that the provisions under Section 320, Cr.P.C. could not limit or affect exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to bring about termination of an unnecessary criminal proceedings. **Crl.M.C.No.727/2013.** 4 Thus, the question to be considered whether the case on hand is a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to terminate the proceedings pending against the petitioners. As regards the allegation of accusation of commission of offence under Section 308 of the Crl.P.C. against the petitioners, according to the prosecution, the petitioners were charged under Section 308 on the following circumstances: The second accused attempted to hit on the head of the defacto complainant with an iron stick and but for the timely evading of the defacto complainant it would have hit on the head of the defacto complainant and resulted in his death. Essentially, the others were implicated with the help of Section 149, IPC. The nature of the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant are not much serious even going by the statement of the first respondent in Annexure-A2. The contentions of the first respondent is that the case involved is purely private and personal in nature. Admittedly, the **Crl.M.C.No.727/2013.** 5 defacto complainant who got injured in the alleged attack compromised and settled the entire disputes. Taking note of the nature of the injuries sustained by him and AnnexureA2, I am of the view that the case on hand cannot be said to be one involving a heinous crime. In the decision of the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** (2012(4) KLT 108 (SC) it has been held that if a settlement has been arrived at between victim and the offender and if the case involved is not a heinous one, it would not be the interest of justice to continue such criminal proceedings. It is more so, because in such circumstances the chance for a successful prosecution would also be very remote and bleak. Taking into account the entire aspects, I am of the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners in SC.No.921/2012 which is pending before the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kannur pursuant to Annexure-A1 has become absolutely unnecessary. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.727/2013.** allowed. Annexure-A1 charge sheet laid in Crime No.707/2012 of Valapattanam Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in SC.No.921/2012 of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kannur are quashed. **C.T.RAVIKUMAR,** (Judge) **Kvs/-**