Kerala High Court
Tedwin Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 7 December, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 7732 of 2018
CC 35/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOLLAM
CRIME NO. 94/2014 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
TEDWIN THOMAS,
AGED 36 YEARS,
THUSHARAM VEEDU,
LAKSHMI NAGAR,
MUNDAKKAL EAST CHERIYAL,
MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE,
KOLLAM
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
EAST POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM-69 0001
3 SUSMITHA JOSEPH,
D/O NIRMALA JOSEPH,PULARI, DARSANA NAGAR-201, VADAKKERILA
VILLAGE, PATTATHANAM CHERIYIL, KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT JANAKEEYA
NAGAR-69 (A),PARVATHYAR JUNCTION, AYATHIL, KOLLAM-690001
R1 & R2 BY SRI AMJAD ALI, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.VINAR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2018, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7732 of 2018 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code" for brevity).
2. The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.35 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. In the said case, he stands indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 354, 345A of the IPC and Section 118 (d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the party respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that the entire disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent 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. Crl.MC.No. 7732 of 2018 3
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the statement of the 3rd respondent has been recorded and she has stated in clear terms that she has no subsisting grievance.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced.
6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the 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.
7. The offence committed by the petitioner 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 conviction is bleak. Having considered all the relevant Crl.MC.No. 7732 of 2018 4 circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 Final Report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner in C.C.No.35 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE DSV/-
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Crl.MC.No. 7732 of 2018 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE