KUNJUMON @ MUHAMOD v. STATE OF KERALA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/19TH MAGHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 8651 of 2016 () --------------------------** **SC 416/2011 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR. CRIME NO.663/2010 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.** **..........** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-------------------** **KUNJUMON @ MUHAMOD, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.MAMU HAJI, MECHINATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KADAVALLUR VILLAGE, KADAVALLUR DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.N.M.MADHU SRI.P.P.HARRIS SMT.C.S.RAJANI** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/VICTIM:** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.** **2. SANTHA, W/O.ACHUTHAN, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, KADAVALLUR VILLAGE, KADAVALLUR DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 543.** **3. APARNA, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.SANTHA, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, KADAVALLUR VILLAGE, KADAVALLUR DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 543.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** **Crl.MC.No. 8651 of 2016 () -------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF the first INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.663/2010 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 25.5.2010 IN CRIME NO.663/2010 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE A4 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.P.NO.90/2010 PASSED BY THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMKULAM. ANNEXURE A5 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A6 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVI SWORN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.8651 of 2016** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of February, 2017** ## **O R D E R** - 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 an FIR lodged by the 2[nd] respondent herein, who is the mother of the 3[rd] respondent, Crime No.663 of 2010 of Kunnamkulam Police Station was registered under section 511 of section 376 of the IPC and on its its completion final report has been laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Session and the same is pending as S.C.No.416 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 24.5.2010 at about Crl.M.C.8651/2016 2 10 a.m., the petitioner herein, who is a person aged 74 years, intercepted the 3[rd] respondent and after threatening her took her to a place under the Kadavalloor bridge. On these allegations, according to the prosecution, the petitioner had committed the above act in an attempt to commit rape on the 3[rd] respondent. 4.The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. They have filed separate affidavits. According to the 2[nd] respondent, the case was registered on a misconception of fact and by misinterpreting the intention of the petitioner herein. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, they have realised later that the intention of the petitioner was not devious. It is submitted that the 3[rd] respondent has now attained majority and her marriage has been fixed. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that in view of Crl.M.C.8651/2016 3 the resolution of the disputes, the proceedings before the criminal court is a futile exercise. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses his reservations in the matter. However it is submitted that the petitioner is not a person 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_ Crl.M.C.8651/2016 4 _proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise 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._ Crl.M.C.8651/2016 5 ## _xxxxxxx_ ## _xxxxxxx_ 9.The offence committed by the petitioner 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-A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant Crl.M.C.8651/2016 6 thereto against the petitioner now pending as S.C.No.416 of 2011 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps