Puthenpurackal Basheer and others v. Station House Officer, Iritty Police Station, Kannur District; Jijin T. G.; State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.4833 of 2019** **CC NO.961/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MATTANNUR** **CRIME NO.19/2003 OF Iritty Police Station, Kannur** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** - **1 PUTHENPURACKAL BASHEER, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, VILAKODE DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **2 MULAKKAL ANISH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. APPU, PAYAM AMSOM, KOLIKADAVU DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **3 VETTUKUZHIYIL SHIBU, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, NUCHIYAD AMSOM, PARIKKALAM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **4 PURAKANDIL SAJEEVAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. RAVI, PADIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **5 NAMATH AJESH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. BALAN NAMBIAR, MUZHAKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **6 MUKKAT JOY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. LUCOSE, PADIYOOR AMSOM, PULIKKAD DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **7 PALAKKALPERUTTI SAJEEVAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** - **1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IRITTY POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670703.** **Crl.MC.No.4833 of 2019** **2** |**2**|**JIJIN T. G.,**| |---|---| ||**S/O. GANGADHARAN, THAZHEVEETTIL HOUSE,**| ||**THALASSERY TALUK, PAYAM P. O.,**| ||**KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 704.**| |**3**|**THE STATE OF KERALA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.**| ||**R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR**| ||**R1 & R3 BY SRI. RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**| **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.4833 of 2019** **3** ## **ORDER** Invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code”, for short), the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the 2[nd] respondent herein, which is now pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur, as C.C. No.961 of 2017. In the above proceeding, they face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 506(2) r/w. Section 149 of the IPC. 2. From the prosecution records, it is discernible that the allegation against the petitioners is that on 10.01.2003 at about 6 p.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent and assaulted him causing injuries. 3. Heard Sri.Cibi Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.K.Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri.K.Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent, submitted that after much deliberations, the victim has resolved his disputes and differences with the petitioners and he has now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to **Crl.MC.No.4833 of 2019** **4** the affidavit filed by the victim before this Court and asserts that he has no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. 5. Sri.Cibi Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victim and the offenders, the possibility of conviction is bleak and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will only inure to put both the parties to oppression and prejudice. Both sides submit that the wrong is basically private in nature and no public interest is involved. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that the petitioners are not involved in any other crimes. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings against them in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 8. The factors that are to be borne while exercising the powers conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the Code in the context of considering a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of resolution of disputes between the offender and the victim have been laid down by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr** . **Crl.MC.No.4833 of 2019 5** [(2012) 10 SCC 303]; **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another** [(2013) 4 SCC 58]; **Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2014) 6 SCC 466]; **Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others** , [(2019) 4 SCALE 200]. It was held that the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court, as recognized and preserved by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is primarily to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The guiding light behind the exercise of inherent power is to do real, complete and substantial justice. It was also held that while examining the prayer for quashing of a non compoundable offence, on the basis of settlement of the dispute between the wrongful doer and the victim, this Court must necessarily consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and oblique and further as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would lead to oppression and prejudice. The courts were reminded that the antecedents of the accused, possible lack of bona fides, his past conduct, including his earlier abscondance, and as to how he had managed to enter into a compromise with the victim are some of the factors which are to reckoned while exercising this extraordinary power. The Apex Court had also cautioned that this Court, when called upon to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to bring the criminal case to an **Crl.MC.No.4833 of 2019** **6** end on the basis of settlement, must steer clear of intervention in heinous or serious offences, including those involving mental depravity, as indeed economic offences affecting the financial and economic well being of the State, such as murder, attempt to murder, extortion, forgery, rape, dacoity, financial or economic frauds, cases under Arms Act, etc. Those offences were held as having a tendency to have a serious impact upon the society and continuation of trial thereof is essential due to overriding element of public interest. It was also held that the mere fact that the police have incorporated a grave offence in the FIR or the final report would not be a deterrent if the records reveal that the ingredients of the offence are not made out. 9. In the light of the above principles, I have perused the prosecution records. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. I have also noted the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the statement of the victim has been recorded by the investigating officer and that he has asserted that it is not in his best interest that the prosecution proceedings continue. Having considered the case in hand on the touchstone of the aforementioned parameters, I am of the view that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it **Crl.MC.No.4833 of 2019** **7** would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the victim and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-I final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.961 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mattannur, are quashed. ## **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** DSV/27.7.19 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE **Crl.MC.No.4833 of 2019** **8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.19/2003 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE**