Sajan Lal & Others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.4190 of 2019** **AGAINST CC NO.1034/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, OTTAPPALAM** ## **CRIME NO.562/2018 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONERS / ACCUSED:** - **1 SAJAN LAL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.JAYARAJ, KUNATHU VEEDU, NEAR THRIPATTA KAVU, KULLAPPULY, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **2 RAJIL C.R., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.C.K.RAJAN, CHOLAYIL VEEDU, MEL MURI, KULLAPPULY, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **3 KARTHIK, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, VALIYAPURAKKAL, VELARAMPARA, KULLAPPULY, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **4 SANTHOSH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, CHERUKONNAKUNATHU HOUSE, S.N.COLLAGE ROAD, KALLIPADAM P.O., SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **5 RATHEESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, KONTHRAMKUNDIL, VEETTAMPARA, AMBALAVATTOM, PANAMANNA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **6 KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.JANAKI, PARIYANGATTU HOUSE, NEAR THRIPATTA KAVU, KULLAPPULY, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SMT.SURUMI SHAKEEL SRI.RANJIT BABU** ## **RESPONDENTS /STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682031.** - **2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHORNUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679121.** CRL.MC:4190/2019 2 **3 NARAYANAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.SHANKARANAYAN NAIR, PAMBADI HOUSE, PULIYANAMKUNNU (P.O), CHALAVARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 679505.** **BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI. AJITH MURALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.MC:4190/2019 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 3[rd] respondent herein, which is now pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ottappalam as C.C. No.1034 of 2018. In the above proceeding, they face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 2. From the prosecution records, it is discernible that the allegation against the petitioners is that on 17.09.2018 at about 11 pm, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him causing injuries. 3. Heard Sri.K.B.Arunkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.P.Pratheesh, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri.Pratheesh, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] 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 the affidavit filed by CRL.MC:4190/2019 4 the victim before this Court and asserts that he has no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. 5. Sri.K.B.Arunkumar, 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** . [(2012) 10 SCC 303]; **Jitendra** CRL.MC:4190/2019 5 **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 end on the basis of settlement, must steer clear of intervention in heinous or serious offences, CRL.MC:4190/2019 6 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 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 CRL.MC:4190/2019 7 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-2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.1034 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ottappalam are quashed **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** KRJ CRL.MC:4190/2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE**|**1**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME**| |---|---|---| |||**NO.562/2018 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH**| |||**WITNESS SCHEDULE IN C.C.NO.1034/2018 ON THE**| |||**FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE**| |||**COURT-I, OTTAPALAM.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**3**|**THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 03.05.2019 EXECUTED BY**| |||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**|