Likesh K. and others v. Jithinraj, Sreekanth and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014/30TH SRAVANA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4202 of 2014 () ---------------------------** **CC 361/2012 JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR** **CRIME NO. 2/2012 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION , KANNUR** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 - 6:** **------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. LIKESH K. AGED 30 YEARS** - **S/O. KARUNAKARAN, KUNNAPPADA HOUSE, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM KOKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **2. N.E. PRAMOD AGED 41 YEARS** - **S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, NADUVILE ETTIYAD HOUSE CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, KOKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **3. VINOD K. AGED 42 YEARS** - **S/O. RAGHAVAN, KANNADA HOUSE, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM KOKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **4. T.V. SATHEESAN AGED 41 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN, KUNNAPPADA HOUSE, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM KOKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **5. SANOOP T. AGED 27 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, THEKKIYIL HOUSE, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM KOKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **6. KRISHNADAS V.,** - **S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN, VELLACHERI HOUSE CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, KOKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. JITHINRAJ, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.T.T. SASIDHARAN, CHULLERI VEEDU, CHERUTHAZHAM KOKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 001.** **2. SREEKANTH, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. PADMANABHAN, KANA VEEDU, CHERUTHAZHAM KOKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 001.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4202 of 2014** ## **3. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 & R2 BY SMT.P.A.ANEESHA R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4202 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1 :COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2/12 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE II :COPY OF THE AFFIDABIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE III : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SKV** ## **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------------** CRL.M.C. No.4202 OF 2014 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of August, 2014 ## ORDER This is an application filed by the petitioners who are the accused in C.C. No.361 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur to quash the proceedings as against them on the basis of settlement under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are arrayed as accused numbers 1 to 6 in Crime No.2 of 2012 of Pazhayangadi Police Station which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 1[st] respondent as defacto complainant alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C No.361 of 2012 and that is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate court, Payyannur and now the matter has been settled between the parties and in view of the settlement, there is no CRL.M.C. No.4202 OF 2014 2 possibility for any conviction. Further, they are friends and neighbours. Since some of the offences alleged are non compoundable in nature, they could not file the application before the court below. So they have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:- “Crl.M.C. may be allowed and Annexure 1 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.361 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur in Crime No.2 of 2012 of Pazhayangadi Police Station may kindly be quashed for the interest of justice” 3. Respondents 1 and 2 who are the defacto complainant and injured appeared before this Court through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not want to prosecute the petitioners and they have filed affidavit stating these facts. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and so he prayed for allowing the application. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction as directed by this court, submitted that there is no other CRL.M.C. No.4202 OF 2014 3 case against the petitioners, but opposed the application for quashing on the ground that grave offences have been incorporated. 6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the 1[st] respondent as defacto complainant in Crime No.2 of 2012 of Pazhayangadi Police Station was registered against the petitioners alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Apart from the defacto complainant, 2[nd] respondent was also sustained injuries in the incident. After investigation, Annexure 1 final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.361 of 2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Payyannur and it was pending before that court. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 are friends and neighbours and on account of the settlement, their old relationship has been restored. The defacto complainant and the other injured have filed Annexure 2 and Annexure 3 affidavits stating that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of well-wishers and they have been CRL.M.C. No.4202 OF 2014 4 compensated for the injuries sustained as well. The ultimate purpose of proceeding with the prosecution is to give some punishment to the person who committed the crime. If they have voluntarily paid some compensation, after realising the mistake and that was accepted by the injured and resulted in harmony between them, then proceeding with the case will not going to serve any purpose as well. Further, it cannot be said that it is a case having any public interest or any political motivation. The petitioners have no other criminal background as well. Applying the principle of Reformative Theory when they have decided to reform themselves, then an opportunity must be given for them that purpose, especially when they have paid compensation for the injury to the injured which was accepted by them and they have decided to forgive them. Since there is no public interest involved and since it is a case of private dispute resulting in registration of the crime which has been settled between the parties and on account of the settlement their relation has been restored, there is no possibility of conviction as neither the defacto CRL.M.C. No.4202 OF 2014 5 complainant nor the injured are the other witnesses are likely to support the case of the prosecution and continuing with the case under the circumstances will only amount to waste of the judicial time. 7. Further the decision reported in _**Gian Singh v State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)],**_ the Supreme Court has held that if it is a case of private dispute resulting in registration of crime and there is no public interest involved and if that matter has been stated between the parties due to the intervention of wellwishers and friends, then court must honour such settlement and promote the harmony that has been resulted on account of the settlement and give an opportunity for the parties to reform themselves and lead a good life in future and can invoke the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the proceedings even if non-compoundable offences are incorporated. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and on account of the CRL.M.C. No.4202 OF 2014 6 settlement conviction will be remote and it is a private dispute and not having any public interest. This court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement which resulted in restorating the harmony between the parties and the pendency of the case should not be huddle for the same. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C. No.361 of 2012 (Crime No. 2 of 2012 of Pazhayangadi Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below at the earliest. ## **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** /True Copy/ P.A. To Judge SKV