Kerala High Court
Shybu vs State Of Kerala on 30 June, 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
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 3116 of 2016
----------------------------------
CC.1315/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, VAIKOM
--------------------
PETITIONERS:
--------------------
1. SHYBU, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.DHAMODHARAN, KOLARAYIL HOUSE,
KULASHEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MARAVANTHURUTHU P O,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686608.
2. PRAVEEDN SURENDRAN, AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O.SURENDRAN, KANDATHIL HOUSE,
KULASHEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MARAVANTHURUTHU P O,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686608.
3. VIBIN SADANANDAN, AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O.SADANANDAN, KANDATHIL HOUSE,
KULASHEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MARAVANTHURUTHU P O,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686608.
4. PRASHANTH, AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.MADHUSUDHANAN, PUTHANPARAMBIL/PULIMADATH,
KULASHEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MARAVANTHURUTHU P O,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686608.
BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. VINOD K, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, VINOD BHAVAN, MARAVANTHURUTHU P O,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686608.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE
R2 BY ADV. SRI.BENNY VARGHESE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30-06-2016 ALONG WITH CRL.MC.NO.3423/2016, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
Crl.MC.No. 3116 of 2016
---------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
-----------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AS CMP NO 7552/2013 BEFORE THE JFCM COURT I,
VAIKOM
ANNEXURE A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CC NO 1315/2013 ON THE FILE
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,VAIKOM
ANNEXURE A3: ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES
--------------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
========================
Crl.M.C. No. 3116 of 2016
&
Crl.M.C. No. 3423 of 2016
==================
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2016
========================
ORDER
1.The petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.3116 of 2016 are the accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3423 of 2016 is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.1315 of 2013 of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class- I, Vaikom. The 2nd respondent herein is the defacto 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 Crl.M.C. No. 3116 of 2016 & 2 Crl.M.C. No. 3423 of 2016 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 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.841 of 2013 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station and was registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506(i) and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution allegation is that on 14.10.2013 the petitioners have assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injuries.
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, Crl.M.C. No. 3116 of 2016 & 3 Crl.M.C. No. 3423 of 2016 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.
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. Crl.M.C. No. 3116 of 2016 & 4 Crl.M.C. No. 3423 of 2016 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 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, these petitions are allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused 1 to 5 in C.C.No.1315 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class- I, Vaikom shall stand quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE SKV