Preji @ Babu; Satheesh @ Satheesh Mon; Mani @ Manikandan; Sreejith; Janardhanan; Rahman @ Rahman Sharef v. Abhijith, Abhishek P, Ravichandran and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5377 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST CP 24/2016 of J.M.F.C.- I, OTTAPPALAM DATED CRIME NO. 1267/2015 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** **1. PREJI @ BABU AGED 23 YEARS,S/O. PRABHAKARAN, PERUMPARAMBU, PERUR POST, LAKKIDI PERUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **2. SATHEESH @ SATHEESH MON** **AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN,PERUMPARAMBU HOUSE, PERUR POST, LAKKIDI PERUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK** **3. MANI @ MANIKANDAN** **AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, PERUMPARAMBU HOUSE, PERUR POST, LAKKIDI PERUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **4. SREEJITH AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN, PERUMPARAMBU HOUSE, PERUR POST, LAKKIDI PERUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **5. JANARDHANAN** **38 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE, PERUR POST, LAKKIDI PERUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **6. RAHMAN @ RAHMAN SHAREF** **21 YEARS,S/O. SULAIMAN, VATTUNGAL HOUSE, PERUR POST, LAKKIDI PERUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **BY ADVS.SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.SACHIN VYAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** **---------------------------** **1. ABHIJITH** **25 YEARS,S/O. RAVINDRAN,** **PERUMPARAMBU HOUSE, PERUR POST, LAKKIDI PERUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 302** ## **2. ABHISHEKH P** - **19 YEARS, S/O. RAVINDRAN, PERUMPARAMBU HOUSE, PERUR POST, LAKKIDI PERUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 302** ## **3. RAVICHANDRAN** - **50 YEARS, S/O. SIVARAMAN, PERUMPARAMBU HOUSE, PERUR POST, LAKKIDI PERUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 302** **4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, OTTAPALAM 679 101** **R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SUKUMARAN** **R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.R. DHANIL** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2909-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5377 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO 1267/2015 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION** **ANNEXUREA2 PHOTO COPY OF FIIR IN CRIME NO 1263/2015 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER IN CRL MP NO 257/2016 IN CRIME NO 1268/2015 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION PSSED BY SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 11-02-2016** **ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 1267/2015 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE A5 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A6 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A7 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **-----------------------** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **kp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 5377 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Dated 29[th] September, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings pending against them as C.P.No.24 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ottappalam. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 19.12.2015 at about - 7.30 pm the petitioners, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted respondent Nos. 1 to 3 at Perumparambu, Peroor and caused injuries. It is the case of the prosecution that the aforesaid incident involved members of two political parties. Crime No.1267 of 2015 of Ottapalam Police Station was Crl.M.C. No.5377 of 2016 -2- registered against the petitioners and after investigation final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. - 3.It is also borne out from the records that a cross case was registered against the respondents 1 to 3 and others in respect of the same incident as Crime No. 1268 of 2015 of the Ottappalam Police Station. Both the cases were settled and it is thereafter that the instant petition has been preferred seeking to quash the proceedings. - 4.The respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance through their counsel and they have filed separate affidavits before this Court, wherein it is stated that the incident had occurred between rival groups and in order to maintain peace and tranquility in the area the parties have mediated the matter and have decided to settle all the disputes between them and to live in harmony. They assert that they do not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits Crl.M.C. No.5377 of 2016 -3- that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. - 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.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Crl.M.C. No.5377 of 2016 -4- The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. Or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were Crl.M.C. No.5377 of 2016 -5- issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 8.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. 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. More over, when the party respondents have settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the party respondents to great oppression and prejudice 9.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 Crl.M.C. No.5377 of 2016 -6- the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA4, final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.P. No. 24 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ottappalam are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-30.9.16