Kerala High Court
Sangeeth Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 28 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
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 3452 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
CC 496/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,
ATTINGAL.
CRIME NO.260/2010 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
..........
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :
----------------------
1. SANGEETH KUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI,
KUNNUPURATHU VEEDU,
NEAR MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL,
PANAPPAMKUNNU, MALAKKAL P.O.,
KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. AKHIL, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SUGUNAN,
SUNIL NIVAS, PANAPPAMKUNNU, MALAKKAL P.O.,
KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. NITHEESH, AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O.THULASEEDHARAN ASARI, CHANTHAVILA VEEDU,
NEAR PANAPPAMKUNNU MARKET, MALAKKAL P.O.,
KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. ASWAK S.DHARAN @ SONU, AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O.SARGADHARAN, KESAVA SADSANAM,
PANAPPAMKUNNU, MALAKKAL P.O.,
KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. JITH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN,
CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VALIYAKUNNAM,
PANAPPAMKUNNU, MALAKKAL P.O., KILIMANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
6. MAHESH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MADHU,
CHARUVILA VEEDU, KALAYICODE,
PANAPPAMKUNNU, MALAKKAL P.O.,
KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
--2--
--2--
Crl.MC.No. 3452 of 2016 ()
--------------------------
7. RAJESH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN,
SHEEJA BHAVAN, VALIYAKANDAM,
PANAPPAMKUNNU, MALAKKAL P.O.,
KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE :
-----------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. VISHAK V.KUMAR, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR,
AGED 25 YEARS, PARAYIL VEEDU,
PANAPPAMKUNNU, MALAKKAL,
KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE
R2 BY ADVS.SMT.RENY ANTO
SMT.RENY ANTO
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
Crl.MC.No. 3452 of 2016 ()
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
------------------------
ANNEXURE 1 : THE COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.260/2010 OF
KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 2 : THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.260/2010
OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 3 : THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
REGARDING THE COMPROMISE DTD.4.6.2016.
ANNEXURE 4 : THE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, KESAVAPURAM,
DTD.1.3.2010.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL
------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C. No. 3452 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 28th June, 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ORDER
1.The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.496 of 2010 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class- II, Attingal.
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 Procedure for Crl.M.C. No.3452 of 2016 -2- 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.260 of 2010 of Kilimanoor Police Station was registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 324 of the IPC. The prosecution allegation is that on 1.3.2010 at about 9.00 pm the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and after wrongfully restraining the de facto complainant, assaulted him.
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 Crl.M.C. No.3452 of 2016 -3- 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. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.
Crl.M.C. No.3452 of 2016 -4-
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, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.496 of 2010 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class- II, Attingal shall stand quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE kp/-28.6.16