Naseef @ Mohammed Naseef and Others v. State of Kerala and Another

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.2268 of 2019** **CRIME NO.447/2017 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** - **1 NASEEF @ MOHAMMED NASEEF, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, VADAKKATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, KUMARANELLUR, VELLALLOOR, TRITHALA, PATTAMBI TALUK.** - **2 IBRAHIM @ MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. MUSTHAFA, KARUVARAKUNNATH HOUSE, AANAKKARA POST, PATTAMBI TALUK.** - **3 SHAMSU @ MOHAMMED SHAMSHUDHEEN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SAIDALAVI,KARUVARAKUNNATH HOUSE, POST KUMARANELLUR, PATTAMBI TALUK.** - **4 SHAFAR @ MOHAMMED HASIR, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED ISHAK, VADAKKUTTU PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, POST KUMARANELLUR, PATTAMBI TALUK.** - **5 FAZIL @ MOHAMEMD FAZIL, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA,VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POST AANAKKARA, THRITHALA,PATTAMBI TALUK.** - **6 FAVAS, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. MARAKKAR, KADAYAMKULAM HOUSE, POST KUMARANELLUR, PATTAMBI TALUK.** - **BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** - **1 MOHAMMED NIYAS K V, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.USMAN, KALLIVALAPPIL HOUSE, THOTTAPADAM, THALAKKASSERI, THRITHALA POST-679 534.** **Crl.MC.No.2268/2019** **2** |**2**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,**| ||**THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**THRITHALA POLICE STATION, POST THRITHALA,**| ||**PATTAMBI TALUK-679 534.**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI**| **R2 BY SRI.AJITH MURALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.2268/2019** **3** ## **ORDER** Invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code”, for short), the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the 1[st] respondent, which is pending as Crime No.447 of 2017 of the Thrithala Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 342, 355 and 362 of the IPC and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act 2011. 2. From the prosecution records, it is discernible that the petitioners as well as the de facto complainant are friends. On 15.10.2017, at about 6 p.m., the de facto complainant was persuaded to come to a football ground and his mobile phone was taken from him. It is further alleged that they tied the de facto complainant to the goal post and thereafter, poured filthy and reeking water and dumped decayed vegetables and rotting eggs on his body with intent to dishonor him. 3. Heard Sri.Rajesh Sukumaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent, submitted that after much deliberations, the victim has resolved his disputes and differences with the petitioners and he has now decided that **Crl.MC.No.2268/2019** **4** the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to the affidavit filed by the victim before this Court and asserts that he has no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. 5. Sri.Rajesh Sukumaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victim and the offenders, the possibility of conviction is bleak and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will only inure to put both the parties to oppression and prejudice. Both sides submit that the wrong is basically private in nature and no public interest is involved. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that the petitioners are not involved in any other crimes. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings against them in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. The petitioners as well as the de facto complainant were ordered to be present in court and I had an occasion to interact with them. The de facto complainant stated that the petitioners had played a prank on him and due to the circumstances prevailing then, he had set the law in motion. **Crl.MC.No.2268/2019** **5** 8. The factors that are to be borne while exercising the powers conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the Code in the context of considering a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of resolution of disputes between the offender and the victim have been laid down by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr** . [(2012) 10 SCC 303]; **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another** [(2013) 4 SCC 58]; **Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2014) 6 SCC 466]; **Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others** , [(2019) 4 SCALE 200]. It was held that the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court, as recognized and preserved by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is primarily to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The guiding light behind the exercise of inherent power is to do real, complete and substantial justice. It was also held that while examining the prayer for quashing of a non compoundable offence, on the basis of settlement of the dispute between the wrongful doer and the victim, this Court must necessarily consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and oblique and further as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would lead to oppression and prejudice. The courts were reminded that the antecedents of the accused, possible lack of bona **Crl.MC.No.2268/2019** **6** fides, his past conduct, including his earlier abscondance, and as to how he had managed to enter into a compromise with the victim are some of the factors which are to reckoned while exercising this extraordinary power. The Apex Court had also cautioned that this Court, when called upon to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to bring the criminal case to an end on the basis of settlement, must steer clear of intervention in heinous or serious offences, including those involving mental depravity, as indeed economic offences affecting the financial and economic well being of the State, such as murder, attempt to murder, extortion, forgery, rape, dacoity, financial or economic frauds, cases under Arms Act, etc. Those offences were held as having a tendency to have a serious impact upon the society and continuation of trial thereof is essential due to overriding element of public interest. It was also held that the mere fact that the police have incorporated a grave offence in the FIR or the final report would not be a deterrent if the records reveal that the ingredients of the offence are not made out. 9. In the light of the above principles, I have perused the prosecution records. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. Moreover, the petitioners as well as the de facto complainant are students. I have also noted the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor **Crl.MC.No.2268/2019** **7** that the statement of the victim has been recorded by the investigating officer and that he has asserted that it is not in his best interest that the prosecution proceedings continue. Having considered the case in hand on the touchstone of the aforementioned parameters, I am of the view that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the victim and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.447 of 2017 of the Thrithala Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** DSV/27.7.19 **Crl.MC.No.2268/2019** **8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.447/2017 THRITHALA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF SEEN MAHAZAR IN CRIME NO.447/2017 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A3 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DEFACTO COMPLAINANT** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE**