Soman M. @ Payipra Soman v. Bindumol and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/10TH MAGHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 2297 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CC 1480/2014 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE(E&O),ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 669/2016 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION** **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** **SOMAN.M. @ PAYIPRA SOMAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O LATE M.NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MUTHIRAKALAYILVEEDU, PAYIPRA, MAANARI P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.** **BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. BINDUMOL, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O KUNJANAN, RESIDING AT KURIKKATUKUDIYIL HOUSE, AMBADI NAGAR, KARA, ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA.** **2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA.** **3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA.** ***ADDL.R4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (IMPLEADED)** *** STATE OF KERALA IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 14.2.2017 IN CRLMA.1728/2017 IN CLR.MC.2297/2016** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.T.RAGHUNATH R1 BY ADV. SMT.KEERTHI SOLOMON R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.J.SHINY R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C. BINEESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **EL** **Crl.MC.No. 2297 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES. ANNEXURE A2: A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT NO.KKMLD00740032 DATED 15.11.2010. ANNEXURE A3: A TRUE COPY OF THE LEDGER MAINTAINED AT THE OFFICE OF THE SOCIETY. ANNEXURE A4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT RECEIVED DATED 9.9.2015. ANNEXURE A5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 9.9.2015. ANNEXURE A6: A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE DATED 29.9.2015. ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORAL COMPLAINT REDUCED TO WRITING MADE BEFORE THE POLICE ON 7.3.2015. ANNEXURE A8: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BEFORE THE MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION DATED 7.3.2016. ANNEXURE 9: A TRUE COPY PETITION BEFORE THE I.G. OF POLICE ON 17.3.2016. ANNEXURE A10: THE MINUTE OF THE SOCIETY DATED 5.3.2016. ANNEXURE A11: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY M.K. KUNJOL A SENIOR OFFICE BEARER AND PATRON OF KERALA STATE HARIJAN SAMAJAM A REGISTERED BODY BEFORE THE DYSP MUVATTUPUZHA. ANNEXURE A12: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.10.2016 ANNEXURE A13: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.12.2016 ANNEXURE A14: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 19.12.2016 ANNEXURE A15: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.02.2009 ANNEXURE A16: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 05.12.2015 ANNEXURE A17: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 04.07.2016 BASED ON ANNEXURE A16 ANNEXURE A18: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16.12.2016 BEFORE THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ANNEXURE A19: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.12.2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE R1: ORIGINAL STATEMENT FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN MALAYALAM DATED 10.01.2017 ANNEXURE R2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ELECTION I.D. PROOF** **TRUE COPY** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **EL** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.2297 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of January, 2017** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( the Code” for brevity ) with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner. - 2.The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.669 of 2016 of Muvattupuzha Police Station registered at the instance of the 1[st] respondent herein alleging offence punishable under section 354A (2) & (4) of the IPC and under section - 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. - 3.On 16.1.2016, while the de facto complainant had come to the Social Welfare Foundation Office at Muvattupuzha, the petitioner, who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, is alleged to have called the de facto Crl.M.C.2297/2016 2 complainant by her caste name and abused her. It is further alleged that during the period from 16.1.2016 to 17.1.2016, the petitioner called the 2[nd] respondent over phone and made sexual overtures towards her with a view to offend. - 4.Notice was issued to the 1[st] respondent and she has appeared in person. According to her, she was persuaded to lodge a complaint against the petitioner by certain persons who were inimical towards him. A detailed statement has also been filed before court and also an affidavit sworn to by her. She has asserted that she has no grievance against the petitioner and prays that the proceedings be quashed. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions expresses his reservation in the matter. It is submitted that it was based on the information furnished by the 1[st] respondent that the Crime was registered. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is not a person with criminal Crl.M.C.2297/2016 3 antecedents. - 6.I have considered the submissions. - 7.Though serious allegations are raised against the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent now states that she was made to file the complaint at the instance of certain others who had an axe to grind against the petitioner. I do not think that it is necessary to delve into the nature of the contentions raised by the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] respondent has filed an affidavit before court asserting that she has no grievance. After going through the materials, it does not appear that any public rights are involved. It appears that the matter has been settled between the parties and a compromise has been arrived at. - 8.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise 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 Crl.M.C.2297/2016 4 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.”_ 9.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: _xxxxxxx xxxxxxx_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that_ Crl.M.C.2297/2016 5 _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._ _xxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 10.The offence committed by the petitioner 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. 11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in Crl.M.C.2297/2016 6 invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA8 FIR in Crime No.669 of 2016 of Muvattupuzha Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps