Vikraman and Rafeeq v. State of Kerala and Nalini

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.1934 OF 2019(B)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 138/2015 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,NORTH PARAVUR (TEMPORARY) CRIME NO.34/2015 OF Puthenvelikkara Police Station , Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 VIKRAMAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, ELLATHAN(H),NARAYANAMANGALAM BHAGOM,PULLUTTU VILLAGE,THRISSUR,NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE OF BABU,KANNIKULANGARA HAGOM,PUTHANCHIRA,MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR.** **2 RAFEEK, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.RASHEED,THERUVIL VEETTIL, KANNIKULANGARA BHAGOM,PULIYALAKUNNU KARA,PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIVEK** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.** **2 NALINI, W/O NARAYANAN NAIR,THALIYAKATTIL(H), KAROTTUKARA BHAGAOM, PUTHENVELIKARA VILLAGE.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.P.N.THANKARAJ FOR R2** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ================== Crl.M.C.No. 1934 of 2019 ================== Dated this the 9[th] day of July, 2019 **O R D E R** The petitioners herein are the two accused in the impugned Anx.A final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.34/2015 of Puthenvelikara Police Station, Ernakulam district, registered for offences punishable under Sec.394 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC and Rule 50(c) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules r/w Sec.177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has led to the institution of Calendar Case, C.C.No.138/ 2015 on the file of JFCM-III, North Paravur. 2. The prosecution allegation in the above case is that on 24.1.2015 at 6.45 p.m. while the victim woman was collecting tamarind, the 1[st] accused had come from behind asking for the house of Velayudhan Paniken and when the victim woman expressed her ignorance, suddenly A-1 had hit on her left cheek and snatched a portion of her gold neck chain and escaped in a motor cycle driven by A-2 and thereby caused a loss of Rs. 10,000/- to the victim. Further that the number plate of the motor was removed. On the basis of the abovesaid allegations, the petitioners herein have been arrayed as the two accused in the instant Crime No. 34/2015 of Puthevelikkara Police Station. The Police after investigation has filed the final Crl.M.C.1934/19 - : 3 :- report/charge sheet in the abovesaid Crime No.34/2015 of Puthenvelikkara Police Station, which has led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C.No. 138/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, North Paravur, in which the two petitioners herein have been arrayed as the two accused for the abovesaid offences. 3. Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 deals with the form and manner of display of registration marks on motor vehicles and sub rule (1) of Rule 50 stipulates that on or after commencement of the said Rules, the registration mark referred to in Sec. 41(6) of the Rules shall be displaced both at the front and at the rear of all motor vehicles clearly and legibly, etc. subject to the other specifications mentioned therein and clause (c) of the proviso to sub rule (2) of Rule 50 also stipulates that the registration mark shall also be painted and exhibited in the manner stipulated therein. Chapter XIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, containing Secs.177 to 210, deals with offences, penalties and procedure. Sec. 177 included in Chapter XIII of the said Act deals with general provision for punishment of offences and it is stipulated therein that whoever contravenes any provision of the Motor Vehicles, Act 1988 or of any rule, regulation or Crl.M.C.1934/19 - : 4 :- notification made thereunder shall, if no penalty is provided for the offence, be punishable for the first offence with fine, which may extend to one hundred rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees. A perusal of other Sections in Chapter XIII of the Motor Vehicles Act would show that none of the other sections deals with punishment or penalty for contravention of the abovesaid provisions in Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Hence the contravention of Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules is regulated by Sec. 177 of the Act, whereby it is provided that if it is a first offence, then it is punishable with fine, which may extend to Rs.100/- and for any second or subsequent offence, with fine, which may extend to Rs. 300/-. Sec. 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with composition (compounding) of certain offences and sub section (1) thereof provides that any offence whether committed before or after the commencement of the said Act punishable under Section 177, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180, Section 181, Section 182, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 183, Section 184, Section 186, etc. may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, could be compounded as mentioned therein. Sub section (2) of Sec.200 of the Act further Crl.M.C.1934/19 - : 5 :- provides that where an offence has been compounded under subsection (1) of Sec. 200, the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of such offence. Suffice to say, the offence involving contravention of Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1956, is thus compoundable. 4. Now it is stated by the petitioners/accused and the 2[nd] respondent defacto complainant that the matter has been settled amicably and that the 2[nd] respondent has also sworn to Anx.B affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioners and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in the above Calendar Case. It is in the above aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings. 5. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any Crl.M.C.1934/19 - : 6 :- purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and _**Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr**_ . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. 6. In the light of the abovesaid aspects, it is ordered in the interest of justice that all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Anx.A Final Report/Charge Sheet filed in Crime No.34/ 2015 of Puthenvelikara Police Station, which has led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C.No.138/2015 on the file of JFCM-III, North Paravur, and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending Crl.M.C.1934/19 - : 7 :- against the accused persons will stand quashed. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before Investigating Officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned for information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of. sdk+ Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Crl.M.C.1934/19 - : 8 :- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.34 OF 2015 OF PUTHENVELIKARA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT DATED 04.03.2019 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**