Harikrishnan and others v. State of Kerala and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/17TH MAGHA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 672 of 2017 () -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1263/2016 of J.M.F.C.,IRINJALAKUDA DATED CRIME NO. 312/2016 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION , TRISSUR PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- 1. HARIKRISHNAN AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN, ILAYATH HOUSE, VAYALOOR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 2. ARUN GOVIND AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDANKUTTY, KAILASAM VAYALOOR VARIYAM, VAYALOOR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 3. VINESH AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, NEDIYAN PARAMBATH HOUSE, VAYALOOR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 4. ARJUN AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SASI, NEDIYAN PARAMBATH HOUSE, VAYALOOR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 5. SYAMSUNDAR AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RAMANTHRA HOUSE, VAYALOOR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 6. SREEKANTH AGED 21 YEARS, S/OP.SURESHBABU, NEDIYAN PARAMBATH HOUSE, VAYALOOR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 7. SANAL AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.SATHEESAN, RAMANTHRA HOUSE, KAVUMTHARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT CONTD... :2: 8. RAJESHKUMAR AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, RAMANTHRA HOUSE, VAYALOOR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 9. SAJEEVAN AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MANINAIR, RAMANTHRA HOUSE, VAYALOOR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 10. JAYAKRISHANAN AGED 20 YEARS, KARAYIL HOUSE, VAYALOOR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO RESPONDENT(S)/STATE OF KERALA AND THE COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODAKARA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 2. VIJAY AGED 15 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, SATHEESAN, S/O.CHANDRAN, KIZHAKKOODAN HOUSE, VAYALOOR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 686001 3. SANJEEV AGED 13 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, SANTHOSH, AGED 42, S/O.CHANDRAN, KIZHAKKOODAN HOUSE, VAYALOOR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 686001 R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. E.C.BINEESH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD.... :2: Crl.MC.No. 672 of 2017 () -------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 312/2016 DATED 09.03.2016 OF THE KODAKARA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 312/2016 OF THE KODAKARA POLICE STATION DATED 23.03.2016 ANNEXURE III AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE FATHER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.01.2017 REGARDING SETTLEMENT ANNEXURE IV AN AFFIDVIT FILED BY THE FATHER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.01.2017 REGARDING SETTLEMENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 672 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 6[th] February, 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.On the basis of the information furnished by the 2[nd] respondent, Crime No. 312 of 2016 of the Kodakara Police Station was registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 294(b), 149, 143, 147, 341 of the IPC against the petitioners herein and on its conclusion, final report has been laid before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Irinjalakuda, which is now pending committal and has been numbered as C.P. No. 3 of 2017. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 5.3.2016 at 11.55 pm, the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful Crl.M.C. No. 672 of 2017 2 assembly and in prosecution of their common object wrongfully trespassed into the house of the respondent No.2 and thereafter assaulted them causing bodily injuries. - 4.The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel that parents of respondents 2 and 3 have come forward and have taken the initiative to settle all the disputes. According to the learned counsel , in view of the resolution of the disputes, the proceedings before the criminal court is a futile exercise. Much reliance is placed on separate affidavits sworn to by the parent and guardian of the respondents 2 and 3 . - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions Crl.M.C. No. 672 of 2017 3 expresses her reservations in the matter. However it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. 6.I have considered the submissions. 7.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties is by now well settled. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303] Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : _“61. 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 criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise_ Crl.M.C. No. 672 of 2017 4 _between the victim and the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: _XXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ ## _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ Crl.M.C. No. 672 of 2017 5 9.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. - 10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-II final report and all proceedings pursuant Crl.M.C. No. 672 of 2017 6 thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.P.No. 3 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class-I, Irinjalakuda are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE