Ullas Kumar and others v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2013/3RD VAISAKHA 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1370 of 2013 (B) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP.102/2012 of J.M.F.C.,PERUMBAVOOR DATED CRIME NO. 737/2012 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 6: ---------------------------------------------- 1. ULLAS KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS - S/O C.A. SREEDHARAN, CHELLISSERIKATTIL HOUSE AIRAPURAM P.O., KOOZHOOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. VIJI PAUL @ BIJU, AGED 40 YEARS S/O POULOSE, PUTHAYATH HOUSE, KAMRATHA BHAGOM IRAPURAM KARA, IRAPURAM VILLAGE. 3. ELDHOSE BABY, AGED 23 YEARS S/O K.P. BABY, KAKKATTIL HOUSE, AIRAPURAM P.O. KOOZHOOR, ERNAKULAM 4. NAZAR P.H., AGED 29 YEARS S/O HAMZA P.A., PADINJAREKUDI HOUSE, AIRAPURAM P.O. KOOZHOOR, ERNAKULAM. 5. VARGHESE PAUL @ VIJIL, AGED 24 YEARS S/O PAULOSE A.M., EDAKUDI HOUSE, AIRAPURAM P.O. KOOZHOOR, ERNAKULAM. 6. SUDHEESH @ KUTTAYI, - S/O SUKUMARAN, KSHETHRAMPARAMBIL HOUSE KILIKULAM BHAGOM, MAZHUVANNOOR, AIRAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU ## RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682031. 2. AYPE VARGHESE @ KUNJAPPAN,, AGED 72 YEARS S/O AYPE, PATHIKKAL HOUSE, KEEZHILLAM KARA RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK -683556. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.RAHIM R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI N SURESH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-4-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1370 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1: A COPY OF THE FIR DATED 3.6.12 NO.737/12 REGISTERED BY KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE DATED 3.7.12. ANNEXURE A3: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE dl/ ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN J.,** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Crl. M.C. No.1370 of 2013 B **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 23[rd] day of April 2013 ## **O R D E R** This is an application for quashing the proceedings in C.P. No.102 of 2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court– 1, Perumbavooor (Crime No.737 of 2012 of Kuruppampady Police Station, Ernakulam District) filed by accused nos.1 to 6 in that case, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused in the above case, which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent/ de-facto complainant alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 448 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation a final report was filed against the petitioners for the above said offences. Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, _Crl. M.C. No.1370/13_ **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Perumbavoor has taken the case on file as C.P. No.102 of 2012. In the meantime, the matter has been settled between the parties. The only non-bailable offences are offences under Sections 308 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The fifth petitioner is a relative of the de-facto complainant as well. No purpose will be served by proceeding against the accused and they prayed for quashing the proceedings. 3. The second respondent filed an affidavit along with the petition and he was represented by a counsel. In response to the notice ordered for the second respondent by this Court, he appeared in person before this Court as well and submitted that the matter has been settled and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the second respondent. 5. It is true that the offence under Section 308 of the Indian _Crl. M.C. No.1370/13_ **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Penal Code is a grave offence. There was no serious injuries sustained though the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code has been incorporated. The matter has been settled between the parties and one of the accused is a relative and others are neighbours of the de-facto complainant. 6. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** (2012(4) KLT 108(SC), the honourable Apex Court has held that it is within the powers of the High Court to quash the criminal proceeding involving the non-compoundable offences, on the basis of the compromise reached by the offender and victim. It is observed in the said decision that compounding offences under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 are different and distinct. High Court must consider whether it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with such proceedings in view of the settlement and the compromise reached between the parties. _Crl. M.C. No.1370/13_ **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 7. Though Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code was considered as a grave offence, there is no serious injury sustained by the de-facto complainant. Further, the matter has been settled between the parties and one of the accused is a relative of the defacto complainant and others are neighbours. So, in order to promote the harmony between the de-facto complainant and the accused and also considering the fact that the composition appears to be genuine and intended for promoting the harmony between the relative and neighbours, I feel that no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case and directing the parties to undergo ordeal of the trial will be of no use. So considering the circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, I feel that it is a fit case to invoke the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Perumbavoor as C.P. No.102 of 2012. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.P. _Crl. M.C. No.1370/13_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** No.102 of 2012 (Crime No.737 of 2012 of Kuruppampady Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Perumbavoor is hereby quashed. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. Communicate the order to the concerned Criminal Court. Sd/ **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, (JUDGE)** dl/