Kerala High Court
Anilkumar vs Nil on 19 February, 2013
Author: C.T.Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/30TH MAGHA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 955 of 2013
--------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST.3866/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ATTINGAL
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
1. ANILKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.KUNHJIRAMAN, PAYYAMPALLI PURAYIDATHIL VEEDU,
KUNNINAKOM DESOM, PALLICHA
VEEDU MURIYIL, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE
2. SUBAIR, AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O.AHAMED KUNJU, BISMILLAH MANZIL,
NEAR PHC, MANAGALAPURAM, EDAVILAKOM MURI,
VEYILOOR VILLAGE
BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
COMPLAINANT(S):
------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2. HAMSA, AGED 50 YEARS,
(CW1) S/O.LUKKUMAN, MANAKKATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU,
BACK OF RAILWAY STATION, KANIYAPURAM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE.
R1 BY SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R2 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-02-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AS
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A: PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 640/2010 OF
MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE B: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 640/2010
OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION PENDING AS S.T NO
3866/2010 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT II ATTINGAL.
ANNEXURE C: NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT/CW1.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
AS
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.955 of 2013
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2013
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.T.No.3866/2010 pending on the file of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal. The delation against the petitioners is one of commission of offences punishable under Section 294(b), 323, 341 and r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the Public Prosecutor.
3. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that crime No.640/2010 of Mangalapuram Police Station, which is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal as S.T.No.3866/2010, was registered at the instance of the second respondent. It is also not in dispute that it is the second petitioner/ the de-facto complainant against whom hurt was caused and also that it was he who was wrongfully restrained or confined. In the light of the provisions under Table Crl.M.C.No.955 of 2013 2 1 of Section 320, Cr.P.C,. the offences under Sections 341 and 323, IPC are compoundable. There is also no dispute with respect to the fact that in view of the provision thereunder the second respondent is competent to compound the said offences as against the petitioner. However, the petitioner is accused of commission of offence under Section 294(b) as well. That offence is not compoundable in terms of the provisions under Section 320, Cr.P.C. Annexure-C is the affidavit filed by the second respondent in this case. It would reveal that the lis that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled and compromised between the second respondent and the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would endorse the same. In such circumstances, the mere fact that Section 294 (b) IPC is not compoundable in terms of the provisions under 320, Cr.P.C. cannot by itself is a reason to decline exercise of inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. going by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi V. State of Haryana reported in 2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC). The submissions made on behalf of the second respondent along with Annexure-C affidavit would undoubtedly reveal that Crl.M.C.No.955 of 2013 3 the continuation of proceedings in S.T.No.3866/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal has become unnecessary.
In the circumstances thus obtained in this case it is the duty of this Court to terminate the criminal proceedings that become absolutely unnecessary, going by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab reported in 2012(4)KLT 108 . In view of the discussion as above, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case wherein this Court should invoke the inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to bring about termination of the proceedings in S.T.No.3866/2010 against the petitioner. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed, Annexure-B Final Report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner in S.T.No.3866/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal are quashed.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.
dlk Crl.M.C.No.955 of 2013 4