Raghu @ Vishnuvardhan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/23RD PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1547 of 2014** **---------------------------** **CC NO. 113/2012 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO.486/2011 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION** **.................** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4:-:** **--------------------------------------------------------** **RAGHU @ VISHNUVARDHAN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.NAVEEN CHADRA, SREE RAGHAVEDRA NILAYA, KOLYA, MADHUR POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH** **RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (CW1) & INJURED (CW2):-:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2. ABDUL AZEEZ P.A., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.P.A.KHADER, KRIPA MAHAL, HIDAYATH NAGAR, HIDAYATH NAGAR POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121.** **3. ABDUL SATHAR,, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.P.A.KHADER, KRIPA MAHAL, HIDAYATH NAGAR, HIDAYATH NAGAR POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT. REKHA R.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** **Crl.MC.No. 1547 of 2014 -----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **-------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1. TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 23.12.2011 IN CRIME NO.486 OF 2011 AS NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.113 OF 2012 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD.** **ANNEXURE A2. A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.12.2013 SIGNED BEFORE AN ADVOCATE NOTARY BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT NO.2.** **ANNEXURE A2(A). A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 03.03.2014 SIGNED BEFORE AND ADVOCATE NOTARY BY THE INJURED/RESPONDENT NO.3.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.1547 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This is an application filed by the 4[th] accused in C.C.No.113/2012 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the 4[th] accused in C.C.No.113/2012 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod which was originated as per Crime No.486/2011 of Vidyanagar police station registered on the basis of a statement given by the second respondent against the petitioner and others alleging the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506(ii), 452 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter has been settled between the petitioner and the respondents. Since some of the offences are now compoundable in nature, the petitioner cannot move the court below for recording compounding. So he has no other option but to approach this Court seeking the following 2 Crl.M.C.No.1547 of 2014 relief: In view of the above grounds and the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.113/2012 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. 4. Respondents 2 and 3, who are the defacto complaint and the injured in the case, have entered appearance through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between them and the petitioner and they have no grievance against the petitioner now and the petition can be allowed. The counsel also submitted that respondents 2 and 3 have filed Annexures A2 and A2(a) affidavits regarding this aspect. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction as against the petitioner and prayed for allowing the application. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court, submitted that the petitioner was an accused in Crime No.329/2006 of Kasaragod police station and that case was quashed by this Court invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and opposed the application. 6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of a statement Crl.M.C.No.1547 of 2014 3 given by the second respondent as defacto complaint, a crime was registered as Crime No.486/2011 of Vidyanagar police station against the petitioner and others alleging offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506(ii), 452 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation Annexure- A1 final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.113/2012 and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was shown as the 4[th] accused in the case. It is seen from Annexures-A2 and A2(a) affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 3, who are the defacto complainant and the injured in the case, that the matter has been settled between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 and they have no objection in quashing the proceedings as against them. Further, it is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is expecting a job in Gulf and the pendency of this case may affect his employment opportunity abroad. 7. Normally this Court will not allow piece meal quashing in respect of some of the accused persons alone invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because that will not serve the purpose as the court below Crl.M.C.No.1547 of 2014 4 has to proceed with the case as against the other accused persons. But considering the fact that the allegations regarding involvement of the petitioner and also considering the fact that he has got an employment opportunity and it is likely to be affected on account of this case and the matter has been settled between the parties, this Court, as an exception, feels that the request for quashing can be considered 8. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State** **of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue Crl.M.C.No.1547 of 2014 5 with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the defacto complainant and the injured and the petitioner, who is the 4[th] accused in the case and no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case as against the petitioner and pendency of this case is likely to affect his employment opportunity and another crime in which the petitioner was an accused was also quashed by this Court, this Court feels that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked in favour of the petitioner to quash proceedings as against him. So this petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.113/2012 (Crime No.486/2011 of Vidyanagar police station) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod as against the petitioner is quashed. Crl.M.C.No.1547 of 2014 6 Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for necessary further action. **Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge