Kerala High Court
Prasanth Aged 40 Years vs Sri.Govind Padmanaabhan on 25 July, 2014
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/5TH BHADRA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 4326 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 803/2012 of
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CRIME NO. 499/2010 OF
POONTHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
------------------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/FIRST ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------------------
PRASANTH AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.JAGANNATHAN, RESIDING AT T.C-41/2195
VIDHYADHI RAJA LANE, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
SRI.MANU V.
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER,
DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND THE INJURED:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. THE CRIME SUB INSPECTOR
POONTHURA POLICE STATION COMPOUND
POONTHURA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.
3. MOHAMMED RAMIS, AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.MOHAMMED RAFIC
RESIDING AT T.C -41/2557 (4) TRA 126, THAIKKAPPALLY
MANACAUD, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.
4. MOHAMMED ROSHAN, AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.M.M.ASIF, RESIDING AT T.C.19/1457(4), RIFAZ MANZIL
THAMALAM DESOM, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, POOJAPPURA WARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.
R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH
BY ADV.SMT.HYMA.SPUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 4326 of 2014 () 2
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
ANNEXURE -A - A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.499 OF
2010 OF POONTHURA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE-B - AFFIDAVIT DATED 25-7-2014 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-C - AFFIDAVIT DATED 25-7-2014 OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
---------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
PATO JUDGE
R.AV
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
=================
CRL.M.C.NO.4326 OF 2014
===================
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2014
ORDER
----------
This is application filed by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings in CC.803/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram on the basis of settlement under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Originally the petition was filed by the first accused alone seeking the relief for quashing of the case and subsequently accused Nos. 2 to 6 were also sought to be impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 6 as per order in Crl.M.ANo.8105/2014 and they were impleaded.
3. The case of the petitioners in the petition was that they were made as accused in Crime No.499 of 2010 of Poonthura police station alleging offences under sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 294(b), 341, 323 and section 427 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed and taken on file as CC.803/2012 and pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananhtapuram. The matter has been now settled between the parties. There is no public interest involved and in fact, the incident occurred due to some misunderstanding between the petitioners and the defacto complainant in respect of parking of a bike and now the CRL.M.C.NO.4326 OF 2014 2 matter has been settled. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be served in keeping the case, since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature. They could not file the application for compounding before the court below. So the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:-
"to quash Annexure-A charge sheet and proceedings in relation to the same".
4. Respondents 3 and 4 appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties, and they have no objection in quashing the proceedings as against all the petitioners and they have filed affidavits stating these facts.
5. 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.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, as directed by this court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners but opposed the application on the ground that grave offences have been incorporated.
7. It is an admitted fact that there was an incident happened on 19.9.2010 at about 7 pm which originated on the basis of some dispute regarding the parking of the motor cycle and resulted in the incident and on the basis of the statement CRL.M.C.NO.4326 OF 2014 3 given by the third respondent as defacto complainant, crime no.499/2010 of Poonthura police station was registered alleging offences under sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 294
(b), 341, 323 and section 427 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and some others and after investigation final report was filed against the petitioners alone alleging the commission of the aforesaid offence and it was taken on file as CC.803/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The matter has been now settled between the parties. Though, originally the first accused has alone come for quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement, subsequently, other accused were also impleaded as additional petitioners and counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that they have no objection in quashing the entire proceedings. They have also filed Annexure b and c affidavits stating these facts.
8. It is true that offence under section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code also incorporated. But on going through the allegations it appears that there was no chance of any conspiracy prior to the commission of the offence as it has happened suddenly on account of parking of a motor bike in a particular place. Though, earlier offence under sections 153A of Indian Penal Code was also shown in the First Information CRL.M.C.NO.4326 OF 2014 4 Report, subsequently that was deleted during investigation. That shows that there was no public interest involved but it was a case of private dispute which resulted in registration of the crime and filing of the final report. In view of the settlement there is no possibility of conviction as well.
9. Further in the decision reported in (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases where no public interest is involved and private dispute filed which resulted in registration of a crime and the matter has been settled and the old relationship has been restored between the parties, on account of the settlement, court must always promote such settlement and even if non compoundable offences have been incorporated, the power under section 482 of the Code can be invoked to quash the proceedings.
10. In view of the dictum laid on in the above decision and also considering the fact that on the basis of allegations, no offence under section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code is attracted and it is a private dispute which resulted in registration of the crime and filing of final report and though the parties belonging to different community, on account of the settlement communal, harmony has been restored between the parties and proceeding with the case will be of no purpose as conviction in CRL.M.C.NO.4326 OF 2014 5 such cases will be remote, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement and the restoration of harmony between the people of the locality who belong to different community and the pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same.
So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in CC.803/2012 (crime no.499/2010 of Poonthura police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvannathapuram as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV