Krishnaraj, Athul Ashok, and Vivek V Pai v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No.4696 of 2019** **CC 379/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALUVA CRIME NO.4902/2017 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION, Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:** |**1**|**KRISHNARAJ,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 21 YEARS,**| ||**S/O VENUGOPAL, ARIMBASSERY HOUSE, WARE HOUSE,**| ||**KUNJATTUKARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-683 561.**| |**2**|**ATHUL ASHOK,**| ||**AGED 21 YEARS,**| ||**S/O ASHOK KUMAR, NJANOORMADOM HOUSE, VELIYATHUNAD**| ||**KARA, KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-683 102.**| |**3**|**VIVEK V PAI,**| ||**AGED 20 YEARS,**| ||**S/O K.V. VENUGOPAL, KALAPPARAMBATHU HOUSE, AZAD ROAD,**| ||**NEAR NAZRATH NAGAR, ALUVA-683 101.**| **BY ADV. SRI.P.S.PRASOBH** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & INJURED PERSONS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA (REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIME NO 4902/17 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2 RAGUL MATHEW, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O MATHEW, KODUKAPPILLY HOUSE, PATHAMPARA, ALAKKODE VILLAGE, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR-670 571.** **Crl.MC.No.4696 of 2019** **2** **3 MATHEW ROJAN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O ROJAN, PARATHAMAKKIL HOUSE, NEAR MARTHAZHMUNI CHAPPAL, RAMAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686 663.** **R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR** **R1 BY SRI AJITH MURALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.4696 of 2019** **3** ## **ORDER** Invoking the powers of this Court 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 2[nd] respondent, which is now pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, as C.C. No.379 of 2018. In the above proceeding, they face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. From the prosecution records, it is discernible that the allegation against the petitioners is that on 08.12.2017 at 10.30 p.m. owing to previous enmity, the petitioners assaulted the party respondents and caused injuries. 3. Heard Sri.P.S.Prasobh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.C.Y.Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri.C.Y.Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submitted that after much deliberations, the victims have resolved their disputes and differences with the petitioners and they have now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. **Crl.MC.No.4696 of 2019** **4** He refers to the affidavits filed by the victim before this Court and asserts that they have no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. 5. Sri.P.S.Prasobh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victims 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 **Crl.MC.No.4696 of 2019 5** down by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr** . [(2012) 10 SCC 303]; **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another** [(2013) 4 SCC 58]; **Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2014) 6 SCC 466]; **Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others** , [(2019) 4 SCALE 200]. 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 **Crl.MC.No.4696 of 2019** **6** 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 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. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. I have also noted the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the statements of the victims have been recorded by the investigating officer and that they have asserted that it is not in their 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 **Crl.MC.No.4696 of 2019** **7** 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 victims 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. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.379 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,** **JUDGE** DSV/26.7.19 **Crl.MC.No.4696 of 2019** **8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO 379/18 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLAS MAGISTRATE COUR-1, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/CW2 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE**