P. J. Jose v. State of Kerala and T. S. Rajan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2016/27TH VAISAKHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2181 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------SC.NO. 665/2015 OF II ADDITIONAL ASST. SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM** **----------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------------** **P.J. JOSE, AGED 64 YEARS,S/O.JOSEPH, PUTHUPALLIL HOUSE, ARAKULAM, MOOLAMATTOM P.O, THODUPUZHA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.M.TOMY SRI.MANU TOM** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.** **2. T.S RAJAN, ADVOCATE, MEERA TOWER, ST. BENEDICT ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOM,ERNAKULAM VILLAGE.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2181 of 2016 ()** **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **------------------------------------------------** **ANNEX A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 452,324,307 AND 506(II) OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE IN S.C NO.665/15 OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,ERNAKULAM ANNEX A2 ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL -------------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.** **-------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2181 of 2016 -------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of May, 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”) seeking to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.665/2015 on the file of the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The aforesaid case arose out of Crime No.1907/2014 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station for offence punishable under S.452, 324, 307 and 506(II) of the IPC. - 2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. - 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would Crl.M.C.No.2181 of 2016 : 2 : submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. It is further submitted that Annexure B affidavit speaks in unmistakable terms that the 2[nd] respondent does not wish that the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner should continue any further. It is the submission of the learned counsel that no public element is involved and the proceedings be brought to termination to promote harmony. - 4.The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submission of the learned counsel and submitted that heinous offence has been committed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has trespassed into the office of a senior lawyer and inflicted serious injuries with a knife. Reliance was placed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the wound certificate and submitted that not less than 7 incised wounds were inflicted and the case was registered under Crl.M.C.No.2181 of 2016 : 3 : S.307 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the ratio of the Apex Court in **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303)** as well as **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466)** would not enable this Court to exercise the extraordinary inherent powers to bring criminal prosecution to a premature termination. 5.In **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466)** the Apex Court had occassion to observe as follows: _XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX_ _[29.3]. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender._ ## _XXXXXXXXXXX_ _XXXXXXXXXXX_ Crl.M.C.No.2181 of 2016 : 4 : _[29.6]. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship._ 6.After hearing the rival submissions, I take note of the fact that the case was registered on the basis of the statement filed by the 2[nd] respondent. The allegation is that on Crl.M.C.No.2181 of 2016 : 5 : 16.10.2014 at 9.30 p.m., the petitioner herein trespassed into the office of the 2[nd] respondent and had inflicted serious injuries with a dagger. The 2[nd] respondent was admitted in the Medical Trust Hospital on 16.10.2014 and as is evidenced by the wound certificate very serious injuries were sustained by the 2[nd] respondent. 7.Testing the facts of the instant case on the anvil of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court, it is felt that when it comes to the question of compounding of offence under S.307 of the IPC, it by no stretch of imagination, can be held to be an offence as between the private parties simpliciter. The offence in question has the scope to have a serious impact on the society at large. As held by the Apex Court in State of **M.P. V Manish (2015 (4) Supreme 115)** , no such settlement can be given a seal of approval by a Court. It is felt that the offence is extremely serious and is under S.307 of the IPC. The truth or falsity of the allegations, in the considered view of Crl.M.C.No.2181 of 2016 : 6 : this Court, can only be decided only after full-fledged trial. Hence, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, the mode of commission of the offence and the other facts and circumstances, it does not appear to this Court that the case can be prematurely quashed on the ground of settlement. 8.The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** Bb _[True copy]_ _P.A to Judge_