Kerala High Court
Ajith vs The State Of Kerala on 14 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 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/23RD SRAVANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 3963 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CC.NO.638/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO. 414/2012 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION ,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
-----------------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 TO 6 :
------------------------------------------------
1. AJITH, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,AGED 24 YEARS,
MUTHANAT HOUSE, KADAMANITTA MURI MURI,
NARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.
2. AMAL, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,AGED 25 YEARS,
MUTHANAT HOUSE, KADAMANITTA MURI MURI,
NARANGANAM VILLAGE,KOZHENCHERRY TALUK
3. NANDU, S/O.OMANAKUTTAN,AGED 27 YEARS,
KIZHEAKEATHIL HOUSE,KADAMANITTA MURI MURI,
NARANGANAM VILLAGE,KOZHENCHERRY TALUK
4. SAJI,S/O.SIVARAMAN, AGED 31 YEARS,
EERAKKAL HOUSE, KADAMANITTA MURI MURI,
NARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.
5. AJESH,S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI, AGED 26 YEARS,
CHAIMANTHIYIL HOUSE, KADAMANITTA MURI MURI,
NARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.M.MANOJ KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE :
---------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,PIN-682 018
2. MR.K.K.VIJAYAN,S/O.KUNJUKURUP,
KANDUMKULATHIL LAKSHAM VEED COLONY,
KADAMANITTA MURI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,PIN-678 031.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA
R2 BY ADV. SMT.L.SMITHARAJ
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
Crl.MC.No. 3963 of 2014 ()
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
---------------------------------------------
ANNEX A1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO.414/12 IN C.C NO.638/12 ON THE FILE OF
THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.1
PATHANAMTHITTA
ANNEX A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.1 PATHANAMTHITTA
ANNEX A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET IN C.C NO 638/12 ON THE FILE
OF HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.1
PATHANAMTHITTA
ANNEX A4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE
sts
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
.................................................
Crl.M.C.No.3963 of 2014
..................................................
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2014.
O R D E R
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the accused 2 to 6 in C.C.No.638/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are accused 2 to 6 in Crime No.414/2012 of Aranmula police station, which was registered on the basis of a statement given by the second respondent as defacto complainant against 6 persons alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 324 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.638/2012. The first accused in the case was absconding. So the case against the first accused was split up and the case against the present petitioners was decided to be proceeded with by the learned Magistrate. In the mean time, the first petitioner got employment in Indian Army's Bombay Engineering Group and Crl.M.C.No.3963 of 2014 2 on account of the pendency of this case, it is likely to affect his employment prospects. The injured/defacto complainant appeared before the court below and examined as PW1 and he did not support the case of the prosecution. In fact, they have filed application for compounding the case under Section 320 (2) of the Code, but since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, the lower court refused to grant permission to grant for compounding the case. In view of the fact that the injured has no grievance against the petitioners and he did not support the case of the prosecution, proceeding with the case will be of no use and it will be only wastage of judicial time. Since some of the witnesses are working abroad and getting them for conducting the case will cause further delay and that will affect the employment prospect of the first petitioner and now he is undergoing training as well. Unless the case is disposed of, he will be likely to lose his employment on account of the pendency of this case. So, the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:
"On these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that this Crl.M.C.No.3963 of 2014 3 Hon'ble Court may pleased to quash proceedings based on the ANNEXURE A2 FINAL report and C.C.638/2012 on the file of the JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.1, Pathanamthitta by allowing this Criminal M.C"
3. The second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that he had no grievance against the petitioners and on account of the intervention of well wishers of both the parties, now the matter has been settled and he does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioners and he had filed an affidavit stating these facts.
4. The counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and though they moved the lower court for compounding and PW1 had not supported the case of the prosecution. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, the lower court did not allow the application. So he prayed for allowing this petition considering the fact that the first petitioner has already got an employment in Indian Army's Bombay Engineering Group as Clerk and undergoing training, Crl.M.C.No.3963 of 2014 4 pendency of this case will affect his prospects.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, as directed by this Court on instructions, submitted that except the 5th accused, there are no other case against the other accused. The 5th accused is arrayed as accused in Crime No.729/2008 of the same police station alleging offences under Sections 323, 294(b) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and then now the case is pending for trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. So according to the Public Prosecutor, it is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were arrayed as accused 2 to 6 along with another accused in Crime No.414/2012 of Aranmula police station which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 2nd respondent/ deacto complainant alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 324 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.638/2012 and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. It is also an admitted fact that since the first accused did not appear, the case against others was decided to be proceeded with by the learned Crl.M.C.No.3963 of 2014 5 Magistrate. It is also seen from the document produced that the defacto complainant was examined before the court below as PW1 and he did not support the case of the prosecution and so he was declared hostile to the prosecution. It is seen from the document produced by the petitioners that the petitioners have moved for compounding the case on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant and since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the application, which prompted them to file this petition before this Court. It is true that case is pending against the 5th petitioner as Crime No.729/2008 of the same police station alleging offences under Sections 294
(b), 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and after filing final report, it is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. Considering the nature of offence mentioned therein, they are not of grave nature. Further other petitioners have no criminal background. Since PW1 had already turned hostile to the prosecution, there is no possibility of conviction of the accused persons as well. Further, the 1st petitioner has got an employment opportunity and got selection as Clerk in Indian Army's Bombay Engineering Crl.M.C.No.3963 of 2014 6 Group and he is undergoing training and if the case is allowed to be continue, it is likely to affect his employment prospects as well. Further other petitioners are youngsters and awaiting for better employment prospects. Further, it was alleged in the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant that the misunderstanding between them have been removed on account of the settlement and their original relationship has been restored and he had decided to forgive the accused persons for the wrong committed by them. So considering the circumstances, this Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners as matter is settled between the parties and though the 5th accused is an accused in another case and the offences alleged are not of grave nature and it cannot be treated as he is a habitual criminal so as to deny the benefit of settlement to him in this case and allowing the case to prosecute will only amount to wastage of judicial time.
So this petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.638/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta as against the petitioners Crl.M.C.No.3963 of 2014 7 is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.3963 of 2014 8