Kerala High Court
Harinarayanan @ Harikuttan vs State Of Kerala on 28 June, 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
TUESDAY,THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 3556 of 2016
----------------------------------
CC.384/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PIRAVOM
CRIME NO. 161/2016 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM
-------------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-4:
------------------------------------------
1. HARINARAYANAN @ HARIKUTTAN,
AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. MURUKAN, NADUKUNNEL HOUSE,
AMBALLOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. SRIRAJ @ SRIKUTTAN,
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. RAVI, RAJBHAVAN HOUSE,
AMBALLOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3. ANAND,
AGED 21 YEARS. S/O. ANILKUMAR, PATHMAVILASAM HOUSE,
AMBALLOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4. MUTHUN RAJ,
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. RAJU, CHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
AMBALLOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
SMT.RESMI THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. ARUN KAMAL, AGED 20 YEARS
S/O. KAMALAN, KURIKKANAMTHADATHIL HOUSE,
AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, MULANTHURUTHY., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3. AJITH K UNNIKRISHNAN , AGED 21 YEARS,
S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, PALOTHU HOUSE,
AMBALLOR VILLAGE, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.A.VIBIN.
R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.VIBIN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
Crl.MC.No. 3556 of 2016
----------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
-----------------------------------------
ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.161/16 OF
MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE R2
ANNEXURE III: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE R3
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES
--------------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3556 of 2016
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2016
O R D E R
~~~~~~~~
1.Petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No. 384 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Piravom. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant and the 3rd respondent is an injured witness.
2.They have preferred this petition banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Three - Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand (2014 (9) SCC 653 ) Crl.M.C.No.3556/2016 -2- with a prayer to quash the proceedings . The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked de hors section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings.
3.Referring to the facts, it is borne out from the records that Crime No. 161 of 2016 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station was registered at the instance of the information furnished by the second respondent under Sections 323, 341, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution allegation is that on 19.2.2016 at 10 p.m. the petitioners restrained the de facto complainant and his friend and assaulted them with stone.
4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of Crl.M.C.No.3556/2016 -3- court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. They have agreed to start afresh and to live in peace and harmony. The pendency of the criminal proceeding will hinder their cordial relationship in no small measure. To bring on record the settlement, the 1st respondent has filed an affidavit wherein he states in unequivocal terms that he has pardoned the petitioner and reiterates that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents.
6.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record.
7.It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature Crl.M.C.No.3556/2016 -4- and do not affect public peace or tranquility. 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.
8.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Gian Singh ( Supra ) and the other cases referred to above.
Crl.M.C.No.3556/2016 -5- In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No. 384 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Piravom, shall stand quashed.
sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE Ps/29/6/16