Sabu P.J. and Mary James v. State of Kerala and Biyatr is

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/13TH MAGHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 564 of 2017** **-----------------------** **CC 887/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,TALIPARAMBA CRIME NO. 253/2015 OF PAYYAVOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR** **------------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO 1 & 2:** **-------------------------------** **1. SABU P.J, S/O.JAMES, AGED 32 YEARS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, ETTUPARA, NELLIKUTTY P.O., PAYYAVOOR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670632.** **2. MARY JAMES, W/O.JAMES, AGED 59 YEARS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, ETTUPARA, NELLIKUTTY P.O., PAYYAVOOR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670632.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -----------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THROUGH S.H.O. PAYYAVOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **2. BIYATRIS, D/O.BABY, AGED 30 YEARS, KADAMBANATTU HOUSE, CHANDANAKKAMPARA P.O., PAYYAVOOR AMSOM,** **KANNUR DISTRICT-670633.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT M K PUSHPALATHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **K.V.** **Crl.MC.No. 564 of 2017 ()** ## **--------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.253/2015 OF PAYYAVOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2- TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE IN C.C.NO.887/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M. COURT, TALIPARAMBA.** **ANNEXURE A3- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN C.C.NO.887/2015 ON THE FILE OF J.F.C.M. COURT, TALIPARAMBA.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES NIL** **-----------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **K.V.** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 564 of 2017** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2017 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 are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.887 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Taliparamba. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 294(b) read with 34 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 24.4.2015 at about - 7.30 am, the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter assaulted her causing bodily Crl.M.C.564/2017 2 ## injuries. - 4.The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that in view of the resolution of the disputes, the proceedings before the criminal court is a futile exercise. Much reliance is placed on the affidavit sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent, to buttress their submissions. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses her reservations in the matter. However it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. - 6.I have considered the submissions. - 7.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties is by now well settled. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303] Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the Crl.M.C.564/2017 3 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.”_ 8.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: ## _XXXXXXXXXXX_ _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_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of_ Crl.M.C.564/2017 4 _any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 9.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. 10.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. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2 Crl.M.C.564/2017 5 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.887 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Taliparamba are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps Crl.M.C.564/2017 6