:null

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/4TH KARTHIKA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 6481 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------CC 1904/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA. CRIME NO.2728/2010 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.** **......** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **----------------------** **1. JINTO JOHN, S/O.JOHN, AGED 32 YEARS, THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE, CHULLI KARA, AYYAMBUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **2. JOHN GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 24 YEARS, MAZHUVANCHERRY HOUSE, PARAKKADAV, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **3. SAJEER, S/O.ASSIZ, AGED 24 YEARS, VAZHAPPILLY HOUE, VADAKKEKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **4. DONSON, S/O.DOMINIC, AGED 24 YEARS, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, AYYAMBUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **5. BASIL P BABY, S/O.BABY,AGED 25 YEARS, PARAPPURATH PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, ARAKKAPPADY ERNAKULAM.** **6. JOHNSON DEVASSY, S/O.DEVASSY, AGED 24 YEARS, VADAKKUMCHERY HOUSE, CHENGAMANAD, ERNAKULAM.** **7. SREERAJ, S/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED 27 YEARS, CHENDAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **8. JISTO, S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 27 YEARS, PALATTIL HOUSE, KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM.** **--2--** **--2--** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6481 of 2016 () --------------------------** **9. MANSU FRANCIS, S/O.FRANCIS, AGED 26 YEARS, KALATHIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALUWA WEST, ERNAKULAM.** **10. ARUN, S/O.SAMSUNDAR, AGED 26 YEARS, SASIRVAD HOUSE, CHENDAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AMD CW1:** **----------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. RAMESH K.R, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KALAKKASSERIL HOUSE, U.C COLLEGE P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **3. BAHNAN K. AREECKAL, S/O.KURIAKOSE, AGED 27 YEARS, AREECKAL HOUSE, CHENGAMANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM.** **4. SARATH JOSHI, S/O.JOSHI, AGED 25 YEARS, MARAMUTTATH HOUSE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R2 TO R4 BY ADV. KUM.M .ANJU THOMAS** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6481 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** |**PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:**|**PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:**| |---|---| |**------------------------**|| |**ANNEXURE A1.**|<br>**COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2728/2010 OF ALUVA**| ||**POLICE STATION, FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST**| ||**CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, ALUVA.**| |**ANNEXURE A2.**|<br>**COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2728/2010**| ||**OF ALUVA POLICE STATION WHICH IS FILED BEFORE**| ||**THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1,**| ||**ALUVA AS CC 1904/2010.**| |**ANNEXURE A3.**|<br>**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE**| ||**2ND RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT.**| |**ANNEXURE A4.**|<br>**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/CW2.**| |**ANNEXURE A5.**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT/CW3.**| |**RESPONDENT(S)'**|**ANNEXURES:**<br>**NIL**| |**------------------------**|| ||**//TRUE COPY//**| ||**P.S. TO JUDGE**| ## **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.6481 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of October, 2016** ## **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.The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 10 in C.C.No.1904 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Aluva. They stands indicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 2.10.2010 at 12.15 - a.m., the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and thereafter attacked the respondents 2 to 4 with weapons causing injuries. Crl.M.C.6481/2016 2 ## 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.It is submitted that the petitioners as well as respondents - 2 to 4 are students of the U.C.College and the incident in question had arisen on an election day in connection with minor disputes between the students. It is further submitted that the disputes have been amicably resolved and there is not acrimony between the parties at present. - 6.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 affidavit 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 it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 7.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 Crl.M.C.6481/2016 3 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 petitioners. 8.I have considered the submissions. 9.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.”_ Crl.M.C.6481/2016 4 10.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 either of the aforesaid two objectives._ ## _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 11.The offence committed by the 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 5 Crl.M.C.6481/2016 nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 12.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. AnnexureA2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in C.C.No.1904 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Aluva, are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps