Padmajan and others v. State of Kerala and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/13TH KARTHIKA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 7299 of 2016 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 1371/2016 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED-A1 TO 5: ----------------------------------------- 1. PADMAJAN,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.PADMAKUMAR,PADMA VILASOM,KARICKAL MURI, KARIMPINPUZHA(P.O),KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SUDHEER,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,SREEVILASOM,PAVITHRESWARAM(P.O), PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE,KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. RAJEEV.L.R,AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN,RAJEEV BHAVANAM,PAVITHRESWARAM MURI, PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE,KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. RATHEESH.R,AGED 24 YEARS, S/O REMANAN,NEDEYALAVEEDU,VENDAR(P.O),VENDAR, KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. ANILKUMAR.R,AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN,MAVILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, NEELESWARAM(P.O),KOTTARAKARA,KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR SMT.S.ANU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, - REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHOOR POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001. 3. ROY.M.K,AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU,APPIL BADHEL HOUSE,PANDITHITTA MURI, THALAVOOR VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001. CONTD.. :2: Crl.MC.No. 7299 of 2016 () --------------------------- R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... :3: Crl.MC.No. 7299 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1371/2016 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE B NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT . RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ----------------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C. No.7299 of 2016** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of November, 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 the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 1371 of 2016 of Puthoor Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered at the instance of the 3[rd] respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Section 337, 338 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that, on 05.09.2016 at 1.20 p.m, as a result of the act/ omission on the part of the petitioners herein, injuries were sustained by the 3[rd] respondent herein. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondent Crl.M.C. No. 7299 of 2016 2 submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress his submission . It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquillity. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 6.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 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. - 7.I have considered the submissions. ## 8.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the Crl.M.C. No. 7299 of 2016 3 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.”_ 9.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:_ Crl.M.C. No. 7299 of 2016 4 _(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_ 10.The offence committed by the petitioners 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 nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 11.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. Crl.M.C. No. 7299 of 2016 5 In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.1371 of 2016 of Puthoor Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. **Sd** /- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE