Shaji and others v. Usha and Ganeshan and The Sub Inspector of Police, Thamarassery, Kozhikode District, and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/18TH MAGHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 758 of 2017** ## **------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 9/2017 OF CHEVAYOOR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE** ## **....** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ----------------------** ## **1. SHAJI,** - **AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, THATTARIPARAMBA HOUSE, PARAMBIL, CHERUVATTA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 012.** **2. NISHA @ NISHABA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.SHAJI, THATTARIPARAMBA HOUSE, PARAMBIL, CHERUVATTA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 012.** ## **3. AKHILESH,** - **AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, KUTTIKATTIL HOUSE, KONOTTU P.O., KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **4. SREEJITH,** **AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, NADUVATHINA HOUSE, CHERUVATTA PARAMBIL, VELLIMADUKUNNU, KOZHIKODE - 673 012.** ## **5. KAPIL,** **AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.PRAKASAN, ERANHINILAM HOUSE, KONOTTU, P.O.CHERUVATTA, POLURE, KOZHIKODE 673 571.** ## **6. KALESH,** **AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.PRAKASAN, ERANHINILAM HOUSE, KONOTTU, P.O.CHERUVATTA, POLURE, KOZHIKODE - 673 571.** **BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW** **msv/** **-2-** **-2-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 758 of 2017** ## **----------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS AND STATE:** **-------------------------------------** ## **1. USHA,** - **W/O.GANESAN, ARUNIMA HOUSE, KATTILPARAMBATH, CHERUVATTA PARAMBIL, P.O.CHEVAYOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 001.** **2. GANESAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, ARUNIMA HOUSE, KATTILPARAMBATH, CHERUVATTA PARAMBIL, P.O.CHEVARYOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 001.** **3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 001.** **4. STATE OF KERALA, (RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM) - 682 031.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.C.ANOOP** **R3 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** **Crl.MC.No. 758 of 2017 ----------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT & REPORT IN CRIME NO.9/2017 OF THE CHEVAYOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE** **-----------------------** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.758 of 2017** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 7th 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.On the basis of an FIR lodged by the 1[st] respondent, Crime No.9 of 2017 of the Chevayoor Police Station was registered alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 52, 323, 324, 354, 380 read with 149 of the IPC. Incidentally , the 1[st] respondent/de facto complainant is the sister of the 2[nd] respondent. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 1.1.2017 at about 8.30 pm, the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common Crl.M.C.758/2017 2 object committed house trespass, armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the 2[nd] respondent with weapons. It is also alleged that the petitioners with intent to outrage the modesty of the 1[st] respondent assaulted her. - 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the party respondents submits that the parties are near relatives and the incident occurred in consequence to a family dispute. According to the parties, the disputes have been settled at the instance of the well-wishers and family members. 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 affidavits sworn to by the respondents 1 and 2 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 Crl.M.C.758/2017 3 ## 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 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 Crl.M.C.758/2017 4 ## 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 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 Crl.M.C.758/2017 5 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-A1 FIR in Crime No.9 of 2017 of the Chevayoor Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps