JINU, PRETHEESH, V.B. SUBASH, JIBIN, ROSHIT M. v. GITHUN, M. SUMESH, PRANAV, SUNILKUMAR, BASIL ISSAC and STATE OF KERALA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/17TH MAGHA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 1056 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO. 1152/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR CRIME NO. 119/2012 OF NENMARA POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **-------------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:** **--------------------------------------------------------** **1. JINU, AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, KARMMANTHARA, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **2. PRETHEESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.P.K.CHANDRAN, PUNNAPPADAM HOUSE, CHATTUKODU, ELAVAMPADAM, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD.** **3. V.B.SUBASH, AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.BASKARAN, MATHAKKODE HOUSE, PERUMKUNNAM, VILAYANNUR, PALAKKAD.** **4. JIBIN, AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.NARAYANAN, AYYAMPUTHUR HOUSE, KADAMPIDY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.** **5. ROSHIT M., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MUTHUKUMARAN, THOOVANKODE HOUSE, PALLASSENA, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINT/CW2-5 AND STATE:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. GITHUN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.GANGATHARAN, NANDHANAM HOUSE, CHERAMANGALAM, MELARKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 506.** **2. M.SUMESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MANIKANDAN, KOTTEKKATTIL HOUSE, KOTTEKKAD, CHARAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD-678 513.** **3. PRANAV, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.LAE PREBHAKARAN, KADAVAMPADAM HOUSE, KALLEPPADAM, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR-680 502.** **4. SUNILKUMAR,AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SASI, CHUVATTUPADAM HOUSE, KANAKKENTHURUTHY, VADAKKENCHERY, PALAKKAD-678 103.** **2/-** **sts** **-2-** ## **CRMC.NO.1056/2014** ## **5. BASIL ISSAC,AGED 23 YEARS,** - **S/O.T.T.ISSAC, THAMARACHALIL HOUSE, KORENCHIRA, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD-678 103.** ## **6. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1056 of 2014 ()** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -----------------------------------------------** |**ANNEXURE-A.**|**PHOTO COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.119/2012 OF**| |---|---| ||**NENMARA POLICE STATION IN PALAKKAD DISTRICT IN CC**| ||**NO.1152/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST**| ||**CLASS MAGISTRATE, ALATHUR.**| |**ANNEXURE-B-**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN**| ||**EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-C-**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN**| ||**EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-D-**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN**| ||**EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-E-**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN**| ||**EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-F-**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT HEREIN**| ||**EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-G.**|**PHOTO COPY OFR THE CALL LETTER DATED 25/1/2014**| ||**ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.**| |**RESPONDENT(S)'**|**ANNEXURES:**<br>**NIL**| ||**/TRUE COPY/**| ||**P.A.TO.JUDGE**| **sts** K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1056 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of February, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.1152/12 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur, to quash the proceedings, recording the composition entered into between the petitioners and the injured persons, including the defacto-complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.1152/12 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. The case was originated on the basis of a crime registered by the Nenmara Police as Crime No.119/2012 of Nenmara Police Station, alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 324 323, 341, 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution allegation was that on 15.02.2012, at about 11.15, hours the accused formed Crl.M.C. No.1056 of 2014 2 themselves into an unlawful assembly and beat the defactocomplainant and his friends with bamboo sticks due to the animosity for questioning the destruction of flags of Kerala Students Union by the Students Federation of India. After investigation, final report has been filed and the case has been taken on the file by the learned magistrate as C.C.No.1152/2012. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. They have realised their mistake and now settled in their life. The pending case will affect their future prospects. Since some of the offences are noncompoundable in nature, they cannot file a compounding application before the concerned court. So they have no other option but to seek the intervention of this court, to quash the proceedings, after recording composition under Section 482 of the 'Code'. Hence the petition. 3. The respondents 1 to 6, who are the defactocomplainant and injured in the case, appeared through counsel and also filed affidavits supporting the case of the Crl.M.C. No.1056 of 2014 3 petitioners. 4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who opposed the application. 5. It is an admitted fact that, while the petitioners and respondents 1 to 6 were studying in N.S.S. College, Nenmara, there occurred a clash in connection with some incident between two groups of students political organisation and the police has registered case and counter case against the petitioners and respondents 1 to 6 in respect of that incident. Both petitioners and respondents 1 to 6 represented one fraction or other of the political student's union. The matter has been settled between the parties now. They have completed their studies and settled in life. It is quite unfortunate that, the students now without going the consequences of their act, on some fanciful aspiration to become leaders in a political party involve in such activities. Further they also did not know the pains taken by their parents, for educating them, by Crl.M.C. No.1056 of 2014 4 spending their harder earned money. These things were done by the students in fact at the instigation of political parties, without knowing the fact that, it will affect their future. However, though it is in the nature of a political issue, considering the fact that the poor students without knowing the consequences have involved in such activities and the pendency of these cases are likely to affect their future and also considering the fact that they have now repenting for what they have done, I feel that, it can be treated as an exceptional case where, (though normally courts should not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction) this court has to invoke the power to provide them better prospects in their life, especially when they have understood their mistake and wanted to rectify them in future. Further the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no other criminal case registered and pending against them except this case. So they do not have any Crl.M.C. No.1056 of 2014 5 ## criminal background as well. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** it has been observed as follows: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case an no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this Crl.M.C. No.1056 of 2014 6 category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” In view of the above discussions made and also considering the fact that things done during the student life has been realised to be a mistake by the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 6 and they want to console themselves, forgetting their political ideologies which they carried during their college days and want to lead a peaceful life, after getting good employment for which this could not stand in the way, I feel that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to make them settle in their life in a proper Crl.M.C. No.1056 of 2014 7 and prospective manner. Further since the matter has been settled between the parties, there is no probability of conviction if it is allowed to proceed with. So this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1152/2012 (Crime No.119/2012 of Nenmara Police Station) on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur, is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for appropriate further action. Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss