Mathew Chacko @ Shinu and others v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/17TH MAGHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 722 of 2017 () -------------------------SC 481/2014 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO. 163/2010 OF VECHOOCHIRA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA** **---** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 1-6:** **-----------------------------** ## **1. MATHEW CHACKO @ SHINU** - **AGED:34 YEARS, S/O CHACKO, RESIDING AT KAITHATHARAYIL VEEDU, PULINKALLU, KUNNAM MURI, CHETHAKKAL VILLAGE, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **2. JOSEPH A.J @ SHIJU** - **AGED:31 YEARS, S/O MATHEW JOHN, RESIDING AT ARIPPARAMBIL VEEDU, PULINKALLU, KUNNAM MURI, CHETHAKKAL VILLAGE, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA** **3. JOHN K .CHACKO @ SHAINU** **AGED:31 YEARS, S/O CHACKO K.C, RESIDING AT KAITHATHARAYIL VEEDU, PULINKALLU, KUNNAM MURI, CHETHAKKAL VILLAGE, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **4. THOMAS @ LIJU** **AGED:33 YEARS, S/O MATHEW, RESIDING AT ARIPPARAMBIL VEEDU, PULINKALLU, KUNNAM MURI, CHETHAKKAL VILLAGE, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA** **5. LINU VARGHESE @ KUTTAPPAN** **AGED:34 YEARS, S/O A.M.VARGHESE, 'RESIDING AT ARIPPARAMBIL VEEDU, PULINKALLU, KUNNAM MURI, CHETHAKKAL VILLAGE, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **Crl.MC.No. 722 of 2017 ()** **6. SIBI, AGED:35 YEARS, S/O RAJU, RESIDING AT EARIYATTU VEEDU, MEMALA, VITHURA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VECHOOCHIR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA** **2. PHILIP VARGHESE @ SHAJI** - **AGED:48 YEARS, S/O LATE VARGHESE, RESIDING AT VALEL HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA P.O., CHETHAKKAL VILLAGE, RANNY PATHANAMTHITTA** **3. SUSY PHILIP** - **AGED:40 YEARS, W/O PHILIP VARGHESE @ SHAJI, RESIDING AT VALEL HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA P.O., CHETHAKKAL VILLAGE, RANNY PATHANAMTHITTA** **4. MONU PHILIP** - **AGED:23 YEARS, S/O PHILIP VARGHESE @ SHAJI, RESIDING AT VALEL HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA PO, CHETHAKKAL VILLAGE, RANNY PATHANAMTHITTA** **5. SHAJI MATHAI** - **AGED:48 YEARS, S/O LATE MATHAI, RESIDING AT PULOORTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA PO, CHETHAKKAL VILLAGE, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA** **6. SATHEESH** - **AGED:25 YEARS, S/O RAJU, RESIDING AT NEDUMPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA P.O., CHETHAKKAL VILLAGE, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR R2 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.BIJITH S.KHAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **Crl.MC.No. 722 of 2017 () --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**|**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**| |---|---| |**-----------------------**|| |**A1:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN THE CRIME NO.**| ||**163/2010 OF VECHOOCHIRA POLICE STATION,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT AND NOW PENDING AS**| ||**S.C.481/2014 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-1,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA**| |**A2:**|**THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/1/2017 SWORN**| ||**BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT**| |**A3:**|**THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/1/2017 SWORN**| ||**BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT CW2**| |**A4:**|**THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/1/2017**| ||**SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT CW3**| |**A5:**|**THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/1/2017 SWORN**| ||**BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT CW4**| |**A6:**|**THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/1/2017 SWORN**| ||**BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT CW5**| |**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS**<br>**:**<br>**NIL.**|| ||**//TRUE COPY//**| ||**P.A. TO JUDGE**| **bp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 722 of 2017** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated, this the 6[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, Crime No.163 of 2010 of the Vechoochira Police Station was registered and investigation was taken up for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 341, 323 and 354 of the IPC, and on 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.481 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Pathanamthitta. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 24.11.2010 at about Crl.M.C. No.722 of 2017 -2- 8.15 p.m, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object wrongfully restrained respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and thereafter assaulted them with weapons causing bodily injuries. - 4.The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that in view of the resolution of the disputes, the proceedings before the criminal court is a futile exercise. Much reliance is placed on the separate affidavits sworn to by the party respondents, to buttress their submissions . - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses his reservations in the matter. However it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. - 6.I have considered the submissions . Crl.M.C. No.722 of 2017 -3- 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 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** Crl.M.C. No.722 of 2017 -4- ## **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: _xxxx xxxx xxxxx_ _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._ _xxxx xxxx xxxxx_ 9.The offence committed by the petitioners 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 Crl.M.C. No.722 of 2017 -5- 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. AnnexureA1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C.No.481 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-, Pathanamthitta are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** ps/7/2/2017