Jinesh @ Dinesh and Others v. Abdul Majeed and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/6TH ASWINA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6108 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------SC.NO. 544/2015 OF I ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO. 865/2014 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 8:** **---------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. JINESH @ DINESH,** - **AGED 28 YEARS, S/O BALAN, KATTADIKKUNNU VEEDU, THAMARASSERY (P.O), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **2. ANOOP, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. APPUKUTTY, KATTADIKKUNNU VEEDU, THAMARASSERY (P.O), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **3. SHAHID, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O USSAIN, PULLUMALA VEEDU, THAMARASSERY (P.O), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **4. JISHNU, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O VINODHAN, KATTADIKKUNNU VEEDU, THAMARASSERY (P.O), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **5. SHAMIL, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O SALAM, PULLUMALAYIL VEEDU, THAMARASSERY (P.O), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **6. RIJAS, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O ABBAS, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, ABBAYATHODU, THAMARASSERY (P.O), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **7. MUHAMMED SHAFFI, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O KUNHI MUHAMMED, ABBAYATHODU COLONY, THAMARASSERY (P.O), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **8. JAMSIL, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O MAJEED, ABBAYATHODU, THAMARASSERY (P.O), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **2/-** **-2-** **CRL.MC.NO.6108/2016** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. ABDUL MAJEED,** **AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, VADAKKE PARAMBIL VEEDU, THAMARASSERY, KUDUKILUMMARAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN:673 014.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANOOP R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RANJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6108 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **---------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.865/2014 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE.** - **ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.865/2014 WHICH IS NOW PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER AS S.C.NO.544/2015 ON THE FILE OF FIRST ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSION JUDGE, KOZHIKODE.** - **ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 3.9.2016.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **NIL** **------------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **==> picture [69 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> P.A.TO JUDGE<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> **sts** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **Crl.M.C. No. 6108 of 2013** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of September, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** - 1.This petiiton is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 2.On the basis of the information furnished by the - 1[st] respondent herein, Crime No. 865 of 2014 of the Thamarassery Police Station was registered against the petitioners herein for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with 149 of the IPC. After investigation final report has been laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions and has been numbered as S.C.No.544 of 2015 on the file of the First Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. Crl.M.C. No.6108 of 2016 **-2-** - 3.Succintly stated, the prosecution allegation is that on 14.12.2014 at 10.30 p.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the 2[nd] respondent after wrongfully restraining him. - 4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 1[st] respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent that an affidavit has been sworn to by the victim completely absolving the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the private respondent, the inherent power can be exercised by this Court and the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in **Shiji @ Pappu and** Crl.M.C. No.6108 of 2016 **-3-** **Others v. Radhika and Another** [2011(10) SCC 705], **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012(10) SCC 303] and **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] to contend that this Court will be justified in exercising inherent powers in a case of this nature to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. - 6.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the nature and gravity of offence are such that this Court will not be justified in exercising its discretionary powers. However, it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. - 7.The legal position is no longer _res integra_ that the inhereint powers of this Court enshrined under Section 482 of the Code is distinct from the power of a criminal court to compound the offence under Section 320 of the Code. The powers can be exercised _ex debito justitiae_ to Crl.M.C. No.6108 of 2016 **-4-** render real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. However, the plenitude of the power under Section 482 of the Code by itself makes it obligatory for this Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. As held in the precedents cited above, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor, the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled can be taken note of by this Court and proceedings can be quashed if it ultimately be only an exercise in futility and if justice demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored. As held in **Gian Singh** (supra) this Court within the framework of its inherent power can quash the criminal proceeding if it is satisfied on the face of such settlement that there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be the casuality and Crl.M.C. No.6108 of 2016 **-5-** ends of justice shall be defeated. 8.After anxiously considering the allegations it appears that the party respondent has completely absolved the petitioners and even if the criminal proceedings are taken to its logical conclusions it would be nothing but an exercise in futility. Further more, it is not reported that the petitioners are involved in any other criminal proceedings. In the above view of the matter, I am of the view that the inherent powers of this Court can be execrised for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. The criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners, now pending as S.C.No.544 of 2015 on the file of the First Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, are quashed. **Sd/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/6/9/16