Kerala High Court
Shainu vs The State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2014
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/16TH SRAVANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 3192 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CC. NO.68/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
.......
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 6:
--------------------------------------------------------
1. SHAINU, AGED 22/12,
S/O. BABU, VADAKKEVILAKATHU VEEDU,
MANNANTHALA WARD, ULLOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (A1).
2. SHANU, AGED 22/12, S/O. ANILKUMAR,
RESIDING AT ORUVATHILKONAM VEEDU,
MANNANTHALA, MANNANTHALA WARD,
ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (A2).
3. SHINU, AGED 22/12,
S/O. BABU, VADAKKEVILAKATHU VEEDU,
MANNANTHALA WARD, ULLOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (A3).
4. SATHYAJITH @ SACHU, AGED 22 YEARS,
S/O. RAGHUDEV, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA VEEDU,
NEAR THOZHUVANCODE TEMPLE, VATTIYOORKAVU WARD,
VATTIYOORKAVU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (A4).
5. SOORAJ, AGED 20 YEARS,
S/O. SUDARSANAN, RESIDING AT
ORUVATHILKONAM VEEDU, MANNANTHALA,
MANNANTHALA WARD, ULLOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (A5).
6. VISHNU, AGED 23 YEARS,
S/O. SATHIKUMAR, RESIDING AT THENGUVILA VEEDU,
KERALADITHYAPURAM, POWDIKONAM WARD,
ULIYAZHTHURA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (A6).
BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR.
Crl.MC.No. 3192 of 2014
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
THROUGH S.I. POLICE, MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 682 031.
2. BAIJU, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O. SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT POTTAYIL VEEDU,
MANNANTHALA WARD, ULLOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 101.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.BABU.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
Crl.MC.No. 3192 of 2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.68/2013
PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE B : AFFIDAVIT OF COMPROMISE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
SWORN BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
=================
CRL.M.C.NO.3192 OF 2014
=====================
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2014
ORDER
---------
This is an application filed by the petitioners who are accused in CC.68/2013, on the file of the judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, to quash the proceedings as against them, in view of the settlement, under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that, petitioners were arrayed as accused numbers 1 to 6 in CC.68/2013, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, which was originated on the basis of the crime registered as crime no.824/2012, of Mannanthala police station on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as defacto complainant against the petitioners alleging offences under section 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 427, 447, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code. Now the matter has been settled between the parties, due to the intervention of well-wishers. No possibility of conviction in view of the settlement. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they could not file the application before the court below. So the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:- CRL.M.C.NO.3192 OF 2014 2
"To call for the records in C.C.68/13 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 427, 447 & 506 (ii) Indian Penal Code and quash Annexure A and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof in the exercise of the inherent powers of this court under sec. 482 of the Code in the interests of justice".
3. Second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of well-wishers of both the parties and he has no grievance against the petitioners now, and he had filed an affidavit stating that fact.
4. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and he prayed for allowing the application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, submitted that there is another case pending against the sixth accused Vishnu as CC.No.592/2012 on the file of the same court and opposed the application on the ground that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.
6. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as defacto complainant, crime no.824/2012, of Mannanthala police station, was registered against the petitioners alleging offences under section 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 427, 447, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that after investigation, final report was filed, and now pending as CC.68/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class CRL.M.C.NO.3192 OF 2014 3 Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. It is true that there is another case pending against the sixth petitioner as CC.No.592/2012 of the same court and that matter was also settled between the parties and they have filed Crl.M.C.3187/2014 to quash the proceedings in that case and that was allowed by this court today. Further the offences alleged in both the cases as against the sixth petitioner were not grave as well. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction as neither the defacto complainant nor his witnesses will support the case of the prosecution. Further there is no public interest involved as even going by the allegations it is seen that the private dispute which resulted in registration of crime, which has now been settled. There is no political issue involved as well.
7. In the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2012(4) KLT 108 (SC), it has been held that, if a private dispute has been resulted in registration of crime and that has been settled between the parties and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case, then the court can invoke the power under section 482 of Code of criminal procedure to quash the proceedings even if non compoundable offences have been incorporated. The same view has been reiterated in the subsequent decision as well. Further in view of the decision of this court the offence under section 294(b) is not attracted. Then only non CRL.M.C.NO.3192 OF 2014 4 compoundable offence is section 324 of Indian Penal Code. So considering the circumstances that the matter has been settled between the parties and they have no grave criminal antecedents and giving them an opportunity to reform must be the main concept of the court especially when they want to reform, then, the court must invoke the power under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings if the matter has been settled between the parties. So considering the circumstances, this court feels that, it is fit case, where the power under section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings, as continuance of this case will amount to wastage of judicial time and conviction in such cases will be remote.
So the application is allowed and further proceedings in CC.68/2013 (crime no.824/2012 of Mannanthala police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV