MANU and ABHILASH v. STATE OF KERALA and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2019 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3479 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1255/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ADOOR CRIME NO. 260/2017 OF Enath Police Station , Pathanamthitta** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**MANU**| |---|---| ||**AGED 23 YEARS**| ||**S/O RAJAN,RESIDING AT THEKKEKARA PUTHEN**| ||**VEEDU,KADAMPANADU VADAKKU MURI,**| ||**KADAMKPANADU VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-**| ||**691553.**| |**2**|**ABHILASH**| ||**AGED 26 YEARS**| ||**S/O THULASEEDHARAN,RESIDING AT THEKKEKARA PUTHEN**| ||**VEEDU,KADAMPANADU VADAKKU MURI,KADAMPANADU VILLAGE,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691553.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.T.S.SARATH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA,KOCHI-682031.**| |**2**|**STATION HOUSE OFFICER**| ||**ENATHU POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-**| ||**691526.**| **3 SANTHA W/O GANESAN,RESIDING AT THADAVILA VEEDU,KUNDAMON MALANADA,KADAMBANADU VADAKKU MURI, KADAMBANADU VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-53.** **4 JAYA RAJAN W/O.RAJAN,RESIDING AT VIPIN NIVAS, KADAMBANADU VADAKKU MURI,KADAMBANADU VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691553.** **5 VIPIN S/O RAJAN,RESIDING AT VIPIN NIVAS, KADAMBANADU VADAKKU MURI,KADAMBANADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691553.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 AND R2, SRI.ANSU VARGHESE FOR R3 TO R5** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ================== Crl.M.C.No. 3479 of 2019 ================== Dated this the 22[nd] day of May, 2019 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 and 4 in Crime No. 260/2017 of Enathu Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs. 323, 324, 451, 294(b) and 149 of the I.P.C. 2. The Police, after investigation had filed Anx.A-1 final report/charge sheet in the matter, which has led the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C.No.1712/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor. 3. The case against the petitioners herein (A-2 and A-4) was split up as they were not available for trial and the trial as against the others was proceeded. The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused persons had formed themselves into an unlawfull assembly with the common object to criminally trespass into the sit-out of the house in question and they had called abusive words and attacked and inflicted injury to the 5[th] respondent/P.W-2 and inflicted pain to the 3[rd] respondent/defacto complainant and her sister, the 4[th] respondent/CW3, when the latter had tried to intervene and rescue the 5[th] respondent. Crl.M.C.3479/19 - : 4 :- 4. The case as against the petitioners (A-2 and A-4) was split up as they were not available for trial and the trial court had proceeded as against the other accused persons concerned. The trial court thereafter had passed Anx. A-2 judgment dated 16.5.2018 in C.C.No.1712/2017 finding that there is no evidence about the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged incidents. Respondents 3 to 5/ CWs 1 to 4 have turned hostile by deposing that they had settled the case with the accused persons. Later, the case against the petitioners herein have been re-numbered as C.C.No. 1255/2018, which is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor. It is stated that now the petitioners and contesting respondents 3 to 5 have fully resolved the disputes and contesting respondents 3 to 5 have separately filed Anxs.A-3, A-4 and A-5 affidavits stating that their disputes have been resolved and that they have no further grievance as against the petitioners and that they are not interested to prosecute the matter any further and that they have no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings as against the present petitioners. 5. It appears that the disputes arose between the parties on account of some political differences in the locality. The accused persons as well as respondents 3 to 5 are residents in the same Crl.M.C.3479/19 - : 5 :- locality and they have now settled the disputes. 6. The first contention of the petitioners is that the very substratum of the prosecution case has been shattered by the acquittal of the co-accused persons as per Anx.A2 judgment dated 16.5.2018 in C.C.No. 1712/2017 and there is nothing worth the matter to proceed further with the prosecution and it will certainly end in acquittal and therefore the impugned proceedings may be quashed. It is also equally contended that since the disputes have been entirely resolved between the parties and major offences are only those under Sec. 294(b), 323, 324, 451, etc., this Court in exercise of extraordinary discretionary powers under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. may quash the impugned criminal proceedings, which has now led to the pendency of C.C.No.1255/2018 as against the petitioners herein. On a perusal of Anx. A2 judgment dated 16.5.2018 in C.C.No.1712/2017, it can been that the very substratum of the prosecution case has been shattered by the acquittal of the co-accused persons and the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, etc. This Court in the cases as in _**Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police**_ reported in 2006 (1) KLT 552, _**Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala**_ reported in 2011(2) KHC 8123, and _**Abbas v. State of Kerala** 2013_ (2) KLT 976, has held that if the substratum of the prosecution is demolished by the Crl.M.C.3479/19 - : 6 :- acquittal of the co-accused, this Court could exercise the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to consider the prayer of quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings against the other accused. So the impugned criminal proceedings could be quashed in the light of the dictum laid down in those decisions. 7. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and _**Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr**_ . Crl.M.C.3479/19 - : 7 :- reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. 8. Accordingly, the impugned criminal proceedings in this case could also be quashed in the light of the categorical settlement arrived at between the parties, as evident from Anxs. A-3, A-4 and A-5 affidavits. The learned counsel for respondents 3, 4 and 5 have also stated that the parties have no further interest to proceed the matter. In the light of these aspects, it is ordered that the impugned Anx.A-1 final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.260/2017 of Enathu Police Station, which has now led to the pendency of C.C.No.1255/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adooor, as against the accused persons and all further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof will stand quashed. The petitioners and the office of the Advocate General will forward certified copies of this order to the trial court concerned as well as the investigating officer concerned for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand finally disposed of. sdk+ Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Crl.M.C.3479/19 - : 8 :- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1388/2013 O0F PANDALAM POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO.1255/2018 ON THE FILES OF JFMC,ADOOR.** **ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.05.2018 IN C.C.NO.1712/2017 OF JFMC,ADOOR.** **ANNEXURE A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.05.2019 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3.** **ANNEXURE A4 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.05.2019 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4.** **ANNEXURE A5 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.05.2019 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5.**