Kerala High Court
Aji @ Kochani vs The State Of Kerala on 23 November, 2016
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 4700 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 1318/2015 OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM
PETITIONERS/1ST AND 3RD ACCUSED:
-------------------------------
1. AJI @ KOCHANI, S/O ANANDAN,
DHWARAKA CHAYAM VITHURA P.O., TRIVANDRUM
2. PRBHA SONY, D/O GOPALAN NAIR, SBR BHAVAN,
PERUMKUZHI AYIYOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK
TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COUR OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. PREMJITH, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O SADANANDHAN, SARASWATHY BHAVAN,
KOTTAKKAKAM PERUNGUZHY, THIRUVANANDAPURAM.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23-11-2016 ALONG WITH CRL.MC 6752/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 4700 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX:
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE FIR NO.1318/15 OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE A2: AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
kp
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C. Nos. 4700 & 6752 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 23rd November, 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ORDER
1.This petition is filed under S.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 in Crl.M.C.No.4700 of 2016 are the accused Nos.1 and 3 and the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.6752 of 2016 is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1318 of 2015 of Chirayinkil Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 452, 323, 324 and 120B of the IPC. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is the husband of the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.6752 of 2016.
3.The prosecution allegation is that on 28.9.2015 at 9 p.m, the 1st accused under the inducement of the accused Nos.2 and 3 trespassed into the house of 2nd respondent Crl.M.C. Nos.4700 & 6752 of 2016 -2- and thereafter assaulted him causing injuries.
4.Heard the submissions advanced.
5.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that he is the husband of 2nd accused and pursuant to the registration of crime, the disputes have been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him 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 Crl.M.C. Nos.4700 & 6752 of 2016 -3- against the petitioners.
7.I have considered the submissions .
8.In Gian singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] Apex Court has laid down 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. 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."
9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. [(2014) 6 SCC Crl.M.C. Nos.4700 & 6752 of 2016 -4- 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:
(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
10.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 Crl.M.C. Nos.4700 & 6752 of 2016 -5- conviction would be bleak.
11.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.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.1318 of 2015 of Chirayinkil Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE kp/-23.11.16