SIVARAJAN, JEEJO, SANTHOSH, SHERIL v. STATE OF KERALA and VINEETH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/30TH MAGHA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 705 of 2013 () ------------------------CP.60/2012 of J.M.F.C., CHALAKUDY CRIME NO. 679/2011 OF KORATY POLICE STATION, TRISSUR PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 : --------------------------------- 1. SIVARAJAN, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. LATE AYYAPPAN, KOPPY HOUSE, ELAMCHERY DESOM KORATTY KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE, NALUKETTU P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 308. 2. JEEJO, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.ANTHONY, CHITTINAPPILLY HOUSE, PALISSERY DESOM KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, PADUVAPURAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SANTHOSH, AGED 34 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN, SREENILAYAM, CHOKLY P.O. NEDUMPURAM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. SHERIL, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN, KAMBIRIKKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, MONTHAL DESOM KARIYAD P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.PAULSON RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE : ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VINEETH , AGED 24 YEARS S/O. KUNJAPPAN, PUTHENATH HOUSE, KOTTAN CHIRA COLONY NALUKETTU DESOM, KORATTY KIZHAKKUMURY VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, NALUKETTU P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 308. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY SRI.P.K.VARGHESE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.705/13 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET WITH FIR ISSUED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKUDY TO THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.679/2011. ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 30.6.2011. ANNEXURE III: AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.705 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 19[th] day of February, 2013 ## **ORDER** The petitioners are accused in crime No.679 of 2011 of Koratty Police Station which is now pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy as C.P.No.60 of 2012. The allegation against the petitioners is one of commission of offences under sections 447, 341, 324 and 308 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second respondent herein is the defacto complainant. AnnexureII wound certificate would reveal that in the attack by the petitioners, the defacto complainant, second respondent sustained certain injuries. The second respondent has, now, sworn in Annexure-III affidavit to the effect that the lis that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled and compromised amicably between himself and the petitioners and therefore, he is not intending to prosecute the petitioners. It is further stated that the dispute involved in this case is **Crl.M.C.705/13** 2 purely private and personal in nature. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the aforesaid crime was registered at the instance of the second respondent and that he had sustained the injuries noted in AnnexureII. True that some of the offences charged against the petitioners are not compoundable in view of the provisions under section 320 Cr.P.C. In such cases, the mere fact that the defacto complainant does not want to prosecute the accused would not and could not be relevant factor. At the same time, it is evident that the lis that ultimately led to the lodging of the complaint and registration of the crime is purely private and personal in nature. Annexure-III would reveal that the second respondent had compromised and settled the matter with the petitioners. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that in such circumstances, it has become absolutely unnecessary to proceed with the criminal proceedings in C.P.No.60 of **Crl.M.C.705/13** 3 2012 pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy. I am convinced that it was at the instance of the second respondent that the aforesaid crime was registered and the lis between himself and the petitioners has been compromised and settled. Merely because the allegations against the petitioners also include commission of offences which are non-compoundable will not and cannot limit the power of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. on account of the provisions under section 320 Cr.P.C, going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)).** When it is evident that on account of the subsequent events expatiated earlier it has become absolutely unnecessary to continue with the proceedings in C.P.No.60 of 2012 as allowing continuance of the said proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of court. In the said circumstances, I have no doubt that this is a fit case to be interfered with by invoking the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108 SC).** **Crl.M.C.705/13** 4 In the said circumstances, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-I charge sheet and all further proceedings pursuant thereto which is now pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy as C.P.No.60 of 2012 are quashed. **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.705/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **Crl.M.C.705/13** 6