P. Gayakumar and others v. State of Kerala

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 442 OF 2020 ``` ``` [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.148/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS (ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE-1), THALASSERY DATED ``` ``` 4.2.2020 AND AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.454/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MATTANNUR DATED 30.03.2015] ``` ## `REVISION PETITIONERS:` - `1 P.GAYAKUMAR,AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.GANGADHARAN, PUTHAN PURAYIL HOUSE, AYYANKUNNU P.O., IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -670704.` - `2 VINEESH,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.BHASKARAN, CHENGAKANDIYIL HOUSE, AYYANKUNNU P.O., IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -670704.` - `3 RANJITH,AGED 33 YEARS S/O.GOPI, CHATHANKUNNEL HOUSE, AYYANKUNNU P.O., IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 704.` - `4 SHAJI,AGED 33 YEARS S/O.LAKSHMANAN, IKKODAN HOUSE, AYYANKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 704.` - `5 SHINOJ @ SHINOTTY,AGED 32 YEARS S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, CHEDIYARATH HOUSE, ARALAM P.O., ARALAM AMSOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 704.` ``` BY ADV SRI.CIBI THOMAS ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI- 682031.` - `2 GOPALAKRISHNAN,AGED 60 YEARS S/O RAMAN PILLAI, VAZHAPPANAL HOUSE, KEEZHPPALLI P.O., PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR-670704 [IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 14.6.2022 IN CRL.M.A. 2/2021 IN CRL.R.P. 442/2020` ``` R2 BY ADV. P.PRAVEEN KUMAR ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` R1 BY ADV. VIPIN NARAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON ``` ``` 09.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.RP No.442/2020 2 ## `O R D E R` ``` The petitioners in this Crl.M.C. are the ``` ``` accused in Crime No.34/2008 of Karikottakari ``` ``` Police Station, Kannur District, which was ``` ``` registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,341,324,326 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). ``` ``` 2.The prosecution case was that, on ``` ``` 19.02.2008 at about 1 p.m., while the defacto complainant was talking with his friends in ``` ``` front of one Prabhakaran Master’s shop at ``` ``` Mundyanapambu, the petitioners formed themselves ``` ``` into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly ``` ``` weapons and assaulted him with a sword, iron ``` ``` bar, reaper, stones etc. and thereby caused injuries to him. ``` ``` 3.After completing the investigation, the Police filed a final report against the ``` ``` petitioners herein, and cognizance thereon was taken by the Judicial First Class Magistrate ``` Crl.RP No.442/2020 3 ``` Court, Mattannur, as C.C.No.454/2008. ``` ``` 4.To substantiate the prosecution case, ``` ``` PWs.1 to 8 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked, and M.Os.1 to 3 were identified. Contradictions in the statements of PW1 were ``` ``` marked as Exhibits D1 and D2. ``` ``` 5.Aftercompletingthetrialand ``` ``` appreciating the materials produced, the learned ``` ``` Magistrate found all the petitioners guilty of ``` ``` the offences and accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each and to pay a fine of ``` ``` Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 143 ``` ``` r/w. Section 149 of IPC, to undergo simple ``` ``` imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine ``` ``` of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 147 r/w. Section 149 of IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC, to ``` Crl.RP No.442/2020 4 ``` undergo simple imprisonment for two years each ``` ``` and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 326 r/w. Section 149 of ``` ``` IPC. It was further ordered that if the fine ``` ``` amount is recovered, Rs.10,000/- shall be given ``` ``` to PW1 as compensation. ``` ``` 6.Even though the petitioners challenged the said order of conviction and sentence by filing Crl.Appeal No.148/2015, the learned ``` ``` AdditionalSessionsJudge-I,Thalassery, ``` ``` dismissed the same as per judgment dated ``` ``` 4.2.2020. This Crl.R.P. is filed challenging the aforesaid judgment. ``` ``` 7.Heard Sri.Cibi Thomas, the learned ``` ``` counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.Praveen ``` ``` Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] ``` ``` respondent and Sri.Vipin Narayan, the learned ``` ``` Public Prosecutor for the State. ``` ``` 8.Even though the Revision Petition was ``` Crl.RP No.442/2020 5 ``` submitted challenging the findings entered into ``` ``` by the trial court as well as the appellate court on merits, the petitioner later filed Crl.M.A.No.1/2021 for accepting Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 documents. Annexure-1, produced along ``` ``` with the said application was an agreement executed between the petitioners and the additional 2[nd]respondent/defacto complainant wherein it is mentioned that the entire dispute ``` ``` between the parties has been settled and the 2[nd] respondent does not have any subsisting grievance against any of the petitioners herein. ``` ``` In support of the Annexure-1 agreement, ``` ``` Annexure-II affidavit sworn by the 2[nd] ``` ``` respondent/defactocomplainantwasalso ``` ``` produced. From the aforesaid documents, it is discernible that the parties have arrived at a ``` ``` settlement and the learned counsel for the 2[nd] ``` ``` respondent expressed his non-objection in ``` ``` setting aside the order of conviction passed ``` Crl.RP No.442/2020 6 ``` against the petitioners herein. ``` ``` 9.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision rendered by this Court in Soban v. State of Kerala [2021(3)KHC 383], wherein this Court considered the sustainability of prayer to quash the proceedings based on settlement between the parties, at the post- conviction stage. After referring to a large number of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held by this Court that the fact that the court found the accused guilty of the offences would not preclude the High Court from exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the proceedings when the challenge against the said proceedings is pending in appeal or revision. Therefore, it is evident that the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmation thereof by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not a bar for invoking the powers of this Court ``` Crl.RP No.442/2020 7 ``` under Section 482 Cr.PC and to quash the ``` ``` proceedings against the petitioners herein. It ``` ``` is also a well settled position that such powers can be exercised even in appellate and ``` ``` revisional proceedings. ``` ``` 10.In this case, the veracity of the ``` ``` settlement was verified through the Station ``` ``` House Officer concerned and it was found that a genuine settlement was arrived between the ``` ``` parties. No criminal antecedents of any of the petitioners herein were also brought to my ``` ``` notice. On perusal of the records, it is seen ``` ``` that the dispute which resulted in the incident ``` ``` is a private dispute between the petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent and no public interest is ``` ``` involved. Therefore, I am of the view that, by ``` ``` quashing the proceedings, no prejudice would be caused to any person. In the Annexure-II affidavit sworn by the 2[nd] respondent, he had ``` ``` also stated that he was adequately compensated ``` Crl.RP No.442/2020 8 ``` by the petitioners for the loss caused to him. ``` ``` Moreover, the petitioners are his relatives and neighbours. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, as the parties have restored their harmonious relationship, it is only proper that ``` ``` the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC ``` ``` be invoked and quash the proceedings. ``` ``` Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against thepetitionersinCrimeNo.34/2008of ``` ``` Karikottakari Police Station are hereby quashed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner as per the judgment impugned in this case, viz. The judgment passed by the Judicial First Class ``` ``` Magistrate Court, Mattannur dated 30.3.2015 in ``` ``` C.C.No.454/2008 and the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Court-1, Thalassery in Crl.Appeal No.148/2015 dated 4.2.2020, are hereby set aside. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## `ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE` ``` pkk ```