Unnikrishnan, Rajendran P.R. @ Kuttappi, Vasudevan @ Babu, Aneesh v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 7880 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **AGAINST T SC 126/2014 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA CRIME NO. 245/2013 OF KUTHIYATHODE POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA** ## **PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **1. UNNIKRISHNAN** **AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN, KOTTETH COLONY, P.O.VALAMANGALAM SOUTH, THURAVOOR DESAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688532.** ## **2. RAJENDRAN P.R. @ KUTTAPPI** **AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN, PAROOPARAMBU HOUSE, P.O.VALAMANGALAM SOUTH, THURAVOOR DESAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688532.** ## **3. VASUDEVAN @ BABU** **AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN, PAROOPARAMBU HOUSE, P.O.VALAMANGALAM SOUTH, THURAVOOR DESAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688532.** ## **4. ANEESH** **AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SIDHARTHAN, PAROOPARAMBU HOUSE, P.O.VALAMANGALAM SOUTH, THURAVOOR DESAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688532.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR)** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED: ------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY *(SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT), THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** ***THE ADDRESS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT “SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT” IS CORRECTED AS “SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHIYATHODE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT” AS PER ORDER DATED 1/12/2016 IN CRI.MA.12478/2016 IN CRL.MC 7880/2016)** **2. JAYAKUMAR AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, P.O.VALAMANGALAM SOUTH, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT** ## **3. HARIDAS** **AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KARIPURATHILTHARA HOUSE, P.O.VALAMANGALAM SOUTH, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT** **4. GOPAKUMAR** **AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN, KOTTETH COLONY, P.O.VALAMANGALAM SOUTH, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT** ## **5. RAJESH** **AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN, RATHEESH BHAVANAM HOUSE, P.O.VALAMANGALAM SOUTH, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT** **R2-5 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.SURESH R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RENJITH.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7880 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT FOR THE CRIME NO.245/2013 DATED 27-03-2013.** **ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FOR THE CRIME N O. 245/2013 DATED 10-08-2013.** **ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AN AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONERS DATED 4-05-2016.** **ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AN AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONERS DATED 16-08-2016.** **ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AN AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONERS DATED 16-08-2016.** **ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AN AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONERS DATED 16-08-2016.** **ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS THE ENTIRE DISPUTES ARE ALREADY SETTLED.** **ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS THE ENTIRE DISPUTES ARE ALREADY SETTLED.** **ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS THE ENTIRE DISPUTES ARE ALREADY SETTLED.** **ANNEXURE A10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS THE ENTIRE DISPUTES ARE ALREADY SETTLED.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL** **-----------------------** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **kp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 7880 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 20[th] December, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in S.C.No.126 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala. In the aforesaid case, they face indictment under Sections 323, 324, 294(b) and 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 26.3.2013 at about - 10.30 pm, the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention assaulted respondents 2 to 5 and caused bodily injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. Crl.M.C. No.7880 of 2016 -2- - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 6.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. - 7.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab [** 2012 (10) SCC 303] Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the Crl.M.C. No.7880 of 2016 -3- 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.”_ 8.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:_ Crl.M.C. No.7880 of 2016 -4- _(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._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 9.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. 10.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. No.7880 of 2016 -5- In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C.No.126 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala are quashed. sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/21.12.16