Sharun Balu K.K. v State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6851 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 2450/2015 of J.F.C.M.-I,HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 772/2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:** **----------------------------** **1. SHARUN BALU K.K AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, KARAKKUDI HOUSE, VELLIKKOTH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. MOHAMMED RASHID K AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED K.K., NEAR CHITHRAM HOTEL, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **3. MOHAMMED RAMEEZ S A** **AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. MANIKANDAN C, MIRTHAJ S.A, S.M.T FORT HOUSE, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** **---------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** ## **2. ADARSH V.V** **AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN K.C, VAZHA HOUSE, PAZHANGOD, KOVAPURAM, CHERUKUNNU VILLAGE, CHERUKUNNU P.O., KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670301.** ## **3. RAJIL RAJAN** **AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, VAISHNAVI, THEEKKUNNU MOTTA, THRICHAMBARAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 141.** ## **4. JITHIN RAJ A.C** **AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. P.M.PREMRAJAN, CAITHRAM HOUSE, THERUR, EDYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT -670 595.** **R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-112016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6851 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES** **----------------------ANNEXURES A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 772/2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION. ANNEXURES A2 AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.9.2016 SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURES A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.9.2016 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURES A4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.9.2016 SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES -----------------------** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS PS TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.6851 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of November, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) has been preferred by the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C. No.2450 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Hosdurg. They stand indicted under section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act. - 2.It was on the basis of a report submitted by the antiragging squad of the NMIT College of Parakkalai that Crime No.772 of 2015 of Hosdurg Police Station was registered. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that while the petitioners herein along with respondents 2 to 4 were travelling in the college bus, the petitioners embarrassed the party Crl.M.C.6851/2016 2 respondents by asking them to refrain from wearing shoes to the College and full sleeve shirts. The party respondents were also asked to sing a song and to mimic certain activities such as pedaling of a cycle etc. - 4.Heard the rival submissions. 5.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that certain trivial acts have been blown beyond proportion to get the crime registered under the provisions of the Ragging Act. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners as well as the party respondents are students of the NMIT College, Parakkal and after the incident, the disputes between the parties were settled at the instance of senior teachers and family members. It is further submitted that inspite of the settlement arrived at, if the petitioners are driven to face the criminal proceedings, their future will be put in peril. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 Crl.M.C.6851/2016 3 submits that they do not have any subsisting grievance and referring to Annexures-A2 to A4 affidavits it is submitted that they do not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue. - 7.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. It is also submitted that separate statements have been recorded by the investigating officer from respondents 2 to 4, who have stated that the matter has been settled. 1.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 Crl.M.C.6851/2016 4 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.”_ 2.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.6851/2016 5 _(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_ 3.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. 4.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.6851/2016 6 In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.2450 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Hosdurg, are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps