Mohammed Salih v. State of Kerala and Akhilesh and Abdul Gafoor

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7660 of 2016** **--------------------------------------** ## **C.P.NO. 67/2016 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT** **-------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :** **------------------------------------------** **MOHAMMED SALIH, SON OF MOHAMMED, AGED 30 YEARS, KUNNAMPALLI, KARENGEMANNA, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND INJURED : ------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. AKHILESH, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 24 YEARS, KUZHYANDATHIL HOUSE, POST KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **3. ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 29 YEARS, KIZHAKALICHIYIL, POST KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** - **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R.RENJITH R2 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **Crl.MC.No. 7660 of 2016** ## **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE CHARGE ALONG WITH THE WOUND CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE KODUVALLY POLICE IN CRIME 292/14 BEFORE THE JFCM-1 THAMARASSERY IN KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** Msd. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7660 of 2016** ## **---------------------------------------Dated this the 8th day of December, 2016** ## **O R D E R** ## **~~~~~~~** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 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.The petitioner herein is the accused in C.P. 67 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Thamarassery. The aforesaid case arose from Crime No.292 of 2014 of the Koduvally Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 506 and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners herein are members of the IUML and the respondents 2 and 3 **Crl.M.C.7660/2016** **2** owe allegiance to the DYFI. On 2.8.2014 at about 2.40 p.m., owing to previous enmity, the petitioner herein along with other accused are alleged to have assaulted the respondents 2 and 3 with weapons and caused injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was abroad and the case against him was not committed. The 5[th] accused also had absconded. Case against accused Nos.2 to 4 were committed to the Court of Session and the case is presently pending as S.C.No.245 of 2015 on the file of the 1[st] Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode. In the course of proceedings accused Nos. 2 and 4 had absconded and at present the accused No.3 alone is facing trial. - 6.The petitioner had surrendered before the Committal Court and the case against him is pending as CP No 67 of **Crl.M.C.7660/2016** **3** 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class- I, Thamarasserry .Referring to Annexure-2 affidavit sworn to by respondents 2 and 3, it is submitted that in the course of the proceedings the matter was amicably resolved between the parties. It is also submitted that though offence under Section 308 is incorporated, the injuries sustained are minor and would only attract Section 323 of the IPC. - 7.I have considered the submission of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned public prosecutor . - 8.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress his submission . It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility . Summing up **Crl.M.C.7660/2016** **4** it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 9.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioner. - 10.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_ **Crl.M.C.7660/2016** **5** _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.”_ 11.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: _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _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_ **Crl.M.C.7660/2016** **6** _either of the aforesaid two objectives._ ## _xxxxxxx_ 12.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. 13.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.All further **Crl.M.C.7660/2016** **7** proceedings in C.P. 67 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Thamarassery as against the petirtioner herein will stand quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** ps/9/12/2016