Kerala High Court
Nisam K.B vs State Of Kerala on 5 March, 2019
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 1396 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 276/2013 of CHIEF
JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
CRIME NO. 1586/2012 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
NISAM K.B., AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O K.M. BASHEER, HOUSE NO.13/966, KARUVELIPADY,
R.K. PILLAI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
SRI.RANJIT BABU
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CENTRAL POLICE STATION,
KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682018.
3 BASHEER M.B., AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O BAVA, MADATHIPARAMBU VEEDU,
RAKKAKADAVU ROAD, VENNALA,
ERNAKULAM-682028.
BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI HRITHWIK C S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1396 of 2019
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.276 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. In the aforesaid case, he stands indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 332, 294(b) and 506(i) of the IPC.
3. The petitioner is an Arabic Teacher in the Darul-Uloom Vocational Higher Secondary School, Pullepady. The 3 rd respondent is the Principal of the said school. The prosecution allegation is that on 23.06.2012 at about 1.35 p.m, the petitioner entered the office of the Principal and abused him with intent to deter him from discharging his official duty.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the party respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner and the party respondent are working in the same school and they have decided to bury the Crl.MC.No. 1396 of 2019 3 hatchet and live in peace. The party respondent has filed an affidavit, wherein he has stated that he is not desirous of prosecuting the petition any further.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents and that the State has no grievance in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved.
7. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their own free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntary and genuine, and can be acted upon.
8. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate 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. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].
Crl.MC.No. 1396 of 20194
9. Having considered the submissions advanced and on perusing the records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.
In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-1 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.276 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE avs Crl.MC.No. 1396 of 2019 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE IN CC.276/2013 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION IN W.O.S. NO.24/2013 ON THE FILE OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL avs //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE