NIDHIN CHANDRAN, ANANTHAKRISHNAN R. NAIR @ ANANDU ABHIMANYU, ANANTHU ANIL, SHARATH MOHAN, AKHIL RAJ, ASWIN S. v. STATE OF KERALA

Crl.M.C.No.3923/22 1 _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944_ _CRL.MC NO. 3923 OF 2022_ ## _PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 6:_ _1 NIDHIN CHANDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, 'GEETHAS' HOUSE, VADAKKENADA, ETTUMANOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM,PIN – 686 631._ _2 ANANTHAKRISHNAN R. NAIR @ ANANDU ABHIMANYU AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, AISWARYA HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. PIN – 686 631._ _3 ANANTHU ANIL, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ANIL KUMAR, OLICKAL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. PIN – 686 631._ _4 SHARATH MOHAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MOHAN, KRISHNA NIVAS HOUSE ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. PIN – 686 631._ _5 AKHIL RAJ, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.RAJASEKHARA KAIMAL, OLICKAL HOUSE, PATTITHANAM P.O., ETTUMANOOR KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 631._ Crl.M.C.No.3923/22 2 _6 ASWIN S., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SADASIVAN K.R., KOCHARAKKAL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. PIN – 686 631._ _BY ADVS. K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR S.MANU BEA MARY BENNY_ ## _RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:_ _1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031. 2 MELBIN JOSEPH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.P.M. JOSEPH, PALUKUZHUPPIL HOUSE., ETTUMANOOR P.O, ATHIRAMPUZHA, PIN – 686 631._ _THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:_ Crl.M.C.No.3923/22 3 ## **O R D E R** Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.915 of 2019 of Kidangoor Police Station, which is now pending as S.C.No.289 of 2021 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kottayam. Offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 120B, 143, 148, 294(b), 506(ii), 324, 326, 328, 307 read with 149 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that on 06.10.2019 the petitioners herein due to political enmity towards the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant formed themselves into unlawful assembly, threatened the de facto complainant and caused grievous hurt to him with weapons like iron rod and thereby attempted to commit his murder. Annexure-A1 is the FIR and Annexure-A2 is the final report submitted by the Police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2. 3. Heard Sri.S.Manu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.K.S.Prenjith kumar, learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent. 4. Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly Crl.M.C.No.3923/22 4 on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn by the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant is filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavit, the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no-objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant also confirms the same. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Station House Officer concerned has verified the veracity of the same and found it to be genuine. 5. The allegations would reveal that the dispute is purely private in nature. In such circumstances, by applying the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]** , proceedings can be quashed by invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This is particularly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue. 6. It is true that the offence alleged is in the nature of Crl.M.C.No.3923/22 5 Section 307 IPC. Normally the proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement between the parties. However, in this case, I have carefully gone through the allegations raised against the petitioners. On perusal of the FIS of the 2[nd] respondent, which forms part of the Annexure-A1 FIR and also further statement of the de facto complainant, it can be seen that, it is highly doubtful as to whether Section 307 IPC is attracted. It is discernible there from that the petitioners have allegedly attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod. The injury sustained by the de facto complainant are fractures on his hands. Even though it is alleged that the petitioners have repeatedly attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod, it is evident therefrom that all the injuries are in the hands of the de facto complainant as it was committed with the knowledge that the same would result in the death of the victim. Apart from the allegations of certain utterances being made by the petitioners, there are no materials which would remotely suggest that the assault was made by the petitioners with the intention to commit the murder of the de facto complainant or it was committed with the knowledge that the said assaults would have caused the death Crl.M.C.No.3923/22 6 of the de facto complainant. Of course, the de facto complainant has sustained fracture on his hands and it comes within the definition of grievous hurt. However, merely because of that reason offence under Section 307 cannnot be charged against the petitioners. In order to attract the said offence, there must be materials to show that the attack was done with the intention to commit the murder of the de facto complainant or with the knowledge that, any of the assaults would have resulted in the death of the de facto complainant. On carefully scrutinizing the nature of allegations that has been raised in the FIS, I do not find any materials indicating such intention or knowledge on the part of any of the petitioners herein. 7. Moreover, it is discernible from the records that the incident itself is occurred on account of the political enmity between the petitioners and the de facto complainant. Now the de facto complainant has clearly mentioned through the affidavit submitted before this Court and also before the Station House Officer that, all the differences of opinion between them have been cleared and he does not have any subsisting grievance against any of the petitioners herein. All the petitioners as well Crl.M.C.No.3923/22 7 as the de facto complainant are very young, who have a long life ahead. Prosecution of this nature may hamper the prospects of their career. In such circumstances, taking into account the nature of allegations, gravity of the same, the settlement between the parties and also the possible impact that a prosecution can cause on the career of all the petitioners who are very young, I am of the view that it is only proper that the proceedings be quashed. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor also brought to my notice that in respect of accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5, they are involved in some other criminal cases as well and the details of the said cases are also made available. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, almost all the cases are registered on the basis of the incidents in connection with political reasons and all the aforesaid matters were settled between the parties. It is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well. 9. In such circumstances, taking into account all the relevant inputs, I am of the view that the prosecution against the petitioners in this case can be quashed even if some of the offences are serious in nature. Crl.M.C.No.3923/22 8 In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-A2 final report submitted in Crime No.915 of 2019 of Kidangoor Police Station and all further proceedings in S.C.No.289 of 2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kottayam against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** DG/11.8.22 Crl.M.C.No.3923/22 9 ## _APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3923/2022_ _PETITIONER ANNEXURES_ _Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 915/2019 OF KIDANGOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DATED 07.10.2019_ _Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 22.05.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE JFCM-I, ETTUMANOOR,_ _Annexure A3 . TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.04.2022_