IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 13TH BHADRA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.4947 OF 2019(G)** **CC NO.692/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR CRIME NO.1874/2017 OF KUNNICODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1, 3 & 4:** - **1 BIJIN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.BOSE THOMAS, PANAMKUNNIL VEEDU, NEAR HIGH SCHOOL, CHAKKUVARAKKAL MURI, CHAKKUVARAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** - **2 SACHIN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.DHANESH, CHARUVILA VEEDU, NEAR HIGH SCHOOL, CHAKKUVARAKKAL MURI, CHAKKUVARAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** - **3 ANANTHU, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SIVANANDAN, SREENILAYAM, NEAR AQUADATE, THALCHIRA MURI, CHAKKUVARKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA -682 031.** - **2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNIKODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 307.** **3 SYAM NADH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN ACHARI, SYAM BHAVAN, CHAKKUVARAKKAL MURI, CHAKKUVARAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 307.** Crl.MC.No.4947 OF 2019 2 ## **R3 BY ADV. ANSU VARGHESE** ## **SRI. RAMESH CHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.No.4947 OF 2019 3 ## **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 3[rd] respondent, which is now pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, Punalur as C.C.No.692 of 2018. In the above proceeding, they face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 454, 461, 380 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 18.10.2017 at 3 pm, the petitioners herein along with accused No.2, committed theft of a laptop and gold ornaments weighing 3.240 gms kept in the almirah of the house of the de facto complainant. 3. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Ansu Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondent submitted that after much deliberations, the victim has resolved his disputes and differences with the petitioners and he has now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to the affidavit filed by the victim before this Court and asserts that he has no objection in bringing the Crl.MC.No.4947 OF 2019 4 ## prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victim 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 **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr** .[1] ; **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and** 1 [(2012) 10 SCC 303] Crl.MC.No.4947 OF 2019 5 **Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another[2]** ; **Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another[3]** ; **Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another[4]** and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others[5]** . 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 of settlement, must steer clear of intervention in heinous or serious offences, including those > 2 [(2013) 4 SCC 58] > 3 [(2014) 6 SCC 466] > 4 [(2017) 9 SCC 641] > 5 [(2019) 4 SCALE 200] Crl.MC.No.4947 OF 2019 6 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. I have also noted the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the statement of the victim has been recorded by the investigating officer and that he has asserted that it is not in his 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 purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the victim 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. Crl.MC.No.4947 OF 2019 7 In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.692 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur are quashed. ## **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,** ## **JUDGE** IAP **//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE** Crl.MC.No.4947 OF 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1874/2017 OF KUNNIKKODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME**<br>**NO.1874/2017 OF KUNNIKKODE POLICE STATION,**<br>**KOLLAM DISTRICT.**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME**| ||**NO.1874/2017 OF KUNNIKKODE POLICE STATION,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT NOW PENDING AS**| ||**C.C.NO.692/2018 ON THE FILE OF JFMC-III,**| ||**PUNALUR.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED**| ||**11/07/2019 SWORN BY THE DE-FACTO**| ||**COMPLAINANT/3RD RESPONDENT.**|