Sudheesh, Unnikrishnan and Sarathkumar v. Ajmal and State of Kerala

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/22ND PHALGUNA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 1025 of 2013 () --------------------------CP.76/2013 of J.M.F.C., AMBALAPUZHA SC.913/2011 of COURT OF ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACT-II), ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO. 182/2009 OF EDATHUA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3: ---------------------------------------- 1. SUDHEESH, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN CHELAPPILLIL, KARICKAL, PAIPPAD P.O ALAPPUZHA 2. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN THAKADIYIL, KIZHAKKETHIL, KARICHAL MURI VEEYAPURAM ALAPPUZHA. 3. SARATHKUMAR, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI VENMELIL KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, ANARI THEKKUM MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------- 1. AJMAL, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN KOYA, THAYYVELIKKAKAM HOUSE, WARD NO. IV KAROOR MURI, PURAKKAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL (KUMMANAM) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1025 of 2013 () ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I:TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER IN BAIL AP[PLICATION NO.5715/2009 DATED 10-11-2009 ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 182/2009 OF EDATHUA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPOUNDING PETITION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.** ---------------------------Crl.M.C.No.1025 of 2013 ---------------------------Dated 13[th] March, 2013 ## **ORDER** The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.182 of 2009 of Edathua Police Station. Petitioners 1 and 3 who are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in the aforesaid crime surrendered before the committal court and thereafter it was committed to the Court of Sessions Alappuzha and presently the case against them is pending as S.C.No.913 of 2011 on the files of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-II), Alappuzha. The second accused was absconding. Therefore, the case as against him was included in the list of long pending cases and subsequently on his surrender the committal proceedings are pending against him as C.P.No.76 of 2013 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ambalappuzha. The petitioners are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier, the first petitioner herein approached this Court by filing B.A.No.5715 of 2009 and he was granted bail as per Annexure-I order. Evidently, while passing that order this Court took note of the submissions to the effect that the dispute that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime was almost Crl.M.C.1025/2013 2 settled. Now, the first respondent who is the defacto complainant and the person who sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioners herein filed a petition along with the petitioners herein in this proceedings. It is stated therein that the entire disputes that constrained him to lodge the complaint and ultimately resulted in registration of the aforesaid crime have been settled amicably between himself and the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that in view of the said settlement the first respondent got no objection in quashing the entire proceedings which are pending against the petitioners herein based on Annexure-II final report. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. As noticed hereinbefore, Annexures I and II would reveal that the petitioners herein are accused of commission of compoundable as well as non-compoundable offences. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC))** the provisions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot limit or affect the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Crl.M.C.1025/2013 3 Court. There can be little doubt with respect to the position that if on account of subsequent developments, the continuation of criminal proceedings became absolutely unnecessary, the continuance of such proceedings has to be terminated, in the interest of justice, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** reported in **2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)** . In **Gian Singh's** case (supra) the guidelines framed by a five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in **Kulwinder Singh** v. **State of Punjab (2007 (4) KLT 245 (P. & H. H.C.) (F.B.))** have been quoted in paragraph 45. Evidently, such guidelines in the matter of exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been framed after referring to various decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the decision in **Gian Singh's** case (supra). Guideline (d) thereunder reads thus:- - **“d.** Minor offences as under S.279 I.P.C. may be permitted to be compounded on the basis of legitimate settlement between the parties. Yet another offence which remains non-compoundable is S.506(II) I.P.C., which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under S.506 I.P.C. in most cases is based on the oral declaration with different shades of intention. Another set of offences, which ought to be liberally compounded, are Ss.147 and 148 I.P.C., more particularly where other offences are compoundable. It may be added here that the State of Madhya Pradesh vide M.P. Act No.17 of 1999 (S.3) has Crl.M.C.1025/2013 4 made Ss. 506(II) I.P.C. 147 I.P.C. and 148 I.P.C. Compoundable offences by amending the schedule under S.320 Cr.P.C.” In this case, the petitioners are allegedly committed offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC which are compoundable besides offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 308, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 I.PC. The petitioners are charged under Section 308 I.P.C. on the accusation that if CW1/the first respondent who is also the defacto complainant had not parried the stab by the first accused aimed at his chest with his left hand it would have resulted in his death. Evidently, the first respondent is the defacto complainant and it was he who sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioners. The nature of the case as is obvious from Annexures I and II would reveal that it is purely personal in nature. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the first respondent along with the statements in Crl.M.A.No.1925 of 2013 would reveal that the entire disputes that ultimately resulted in the registration of the aforesaid crime have been settled and compromised by the first respondent with the petitioners. However, the prayer of the petitioners and the petition for compounding the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted as allowing such a prayer would have the effect of overreaching the Crl.M.C.1025/2013 5 statutory provision which prohibits compounding of offences otherwise than in terms of the provisions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Going by the provisions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. non-compoundable offences could not be compounded. However, the prohibition under Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not limit or affect the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. going by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **B.S.Joshi's** case (supra). Annexure-III is also filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the said circumstances and in the light of **Gian Singh's** case (supra) and **B.S.Joshi's** case (supra) I am of the considered view that to secure the ends of justice it is essential to terminate the criminal proceedings against the petitioners taking note of the settlement and compromise reached between them. In such circumstances, the continuance of proceedings as against the petitioners have become absolutely unnecessary and the chance for their successful prosecution is also very remote and bleak. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-II final report laid in Crime No.182 of 2009 of Edathua Police Station and all further proceedings against petitioners 1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.913 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-II), Alappuzha and all further proceedings pursuant thereto Crl.M.C.1025/2013 6 pending against the second petitioner/2[nd] accused in C.P.No.76 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ambalappuzha are hereby quashed. Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS