Kerala High Court
Jabir P vs The State Of Kerala on 29 March, 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/8TH ASHADHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 3337 of 2016
-------------------------
CC 1117/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDRUG
CRIME NO. 1042/2014 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD
.....
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:
---------------------------
1. JABIR P.,
S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PARAMBATH HOUSE,
PADANNA VADAKKEPURAM, PADANNA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2. FAYID M.,
S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 23 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MADAMPILLATH HOUSE,
PADANNA KAVUNTHALA, PADANNNA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
3. VASIL V.,
AGED 24, S/O. ABDUL NAZER,
RESIDING AT VALIYAKATHU HOUSE,
MOOSAHAJIMUKKU, PADANNNA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
4. ASHIQ ALI T.M.A.,
AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. KHATIM, RESIDING AT SALI MANZIL,
PADANNA VADAKKEPURAM, PADANNNA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
5. K.MUHAMMED SAJID,
S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 24 YEARS, KUTHIRUMMAL HOUSE,
SAHIL MANZIL, PADANNA, KAVUNTHALA, PADANNNA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU
msv/
-2-
-2-
Crl.MC.No. 3337 of 2016
------------------------
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
-------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. M.V.SURESH, S/O.MUTGANU,
AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING HE MUNDIAN HOUSE,
PADANNA VADAKKEPURAM, PADANNA VILLAGE,
HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 123.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
R2 BY ADV. SRI.ROY THOMAS (PATHANAMTHITTA)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
msv/
Crl.MC.No. 3337 of 2016
------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN
CRIME NO. 1042/2014 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 1042/2014 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 29-3-2016 SWORN IN THE BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN
CRIME NO. 1042/2014 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE:
------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
=====================
Crl.M.C. No. 3337 of 2016
==================
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2016
========================
ORDER
1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.No.1117 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class- I, Hosdurg. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.
2.They have preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 ) 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 Crl.M.C. No. 3337 of 2016 2 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.1042 of 2014 of Chandera Police Station was registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The prosecution allegation is that on 30.11.2014 at 3.30 pm the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant after wrongful restraining.
4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of 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 2nd respondent has also filed an affidavit wherein he states in unequivocal terms that he has pardoned the petitioners and reiterates that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings.
Crl.M.C. No. 3337 of 2016 3
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 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 Crl.M.C. No. 3337 of 2016 4 falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Gian Singh ( Supra ) and the other cases referred to above.
In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.No.1117 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class- I, Hosdurg shall stand quashed.
Sd/-
RAJAVIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE SKV