Rakesh, Vishnu and Sreelal v. Sub Inspector of Police, Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram and Sreejith

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 5173 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 505/2011 of I ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CRIME NO. 286/2010 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **PETITIONERS/A1 TO A3:** **----------------------** ## **1. RAKESH** **S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGE 20/10, TC 54/1718, TUMARI MUTTATH MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, MELAMCODE WARD, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **2. VISHNU** **S/O.REGHUVARAN NAIR, AGE 20/10, TC 55/2415, KIZHEKKEVILA, PAPPANAMCODE WARD, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **3. SREELAL** **S/O.ANILKUMAR, AGE 20/10, THULAVILA AMBAZHAKKAL VEEDU, ESTATE WARD, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR** **SRI. STEJO SRI.V.S.THOSHIN SRI.E.A.HARIS** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS** **-------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARAMANA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031** **2. SREEJITH, S/O SREEKANTHAN, AGE 23/10 TC 55/2384 PAPPANAMCODE WARD, KIZHEKKEVIAL, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RAJAISH BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-112016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 5173 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES ----------------------ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE POLICE CHARGE IN SC NO.505/11. ANNEXURE B COMPROMISE AFFIDAVIT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES -----------------------** **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS PS TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.5173 of 2016** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 14th 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 accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No. - 505 of 2011 on the file of the I[st] Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. They stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294 - (b), 323, 324, 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 25.4.2010 at 3.30 p.m., the petitioners herein wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent herein and assaulted him causing injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. Crl.M.C.5173/2016 2 - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent 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 tranquility. 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.5173/2016 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:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ Crl.M.C.5173/2016 4 _(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.5173/2016 5 In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in S.C.No. 505 of 2011 on the file of the I[st] Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps