Kerala High Court
Abdul Nazar V.M vs Amal Babu on 3 February, 2014
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/29TH MAGHA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1160 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
SC 37/2014 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - II, KALPETTA
-------
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 6 AND 7:
---------------------------
1. ABDUL NAZAR V.M., AGED 20 YEARS,
S/O.MUTHU MUHAMMED, VALIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KUPPADI P.O., VENGOOR, SULTHAN BATHERY.
2. RIYAS V.M., AGED 22 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED V.M., VATTAKUDI HOUSE,
PAZHERI, KUPPADI, SULTHAN BATHERY.
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
-----------------------------
1. AMAL BABU, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.BABU,
EZHURKUNNIL HOUSE, ERULAM
SULTHAN BATHERY, 673592.
2. SHARATH LAL.P.S., AGED 22 YEARS,
S/O.SUDHAKARAN, CHULINTHANATH HOUSE, PUTHADI P.O.
THANIKUNNU PUTHADI AMSOM, SULTHAN BATHERY, 673592.
3. DIPINPOL BABY, AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O.BABY, POOKOLAS HOUSE, VALLUVADI P.O.,
KIDANGANAD AMSOM, SULTHAN BATHERY, 673592.
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, 673592.
5. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
R4 & R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
BP
Crl.MC.No. 1160 of 2014 ()
-------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE-I: COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
SC 37/14 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, WYNAD.
ANNEXURE-II: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2014.
ANNEXURE-III: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2014.
ANNEXURE-IV: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
K. Ramakrishnan, J.
==============================
Crl.M.C.No.1160 of 2014
==============================
Dated this, the 18th day of February, 2014.
O R D E R
This is an application filed by accused Nos.6 and 7 in S.C.No.37/14 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Wynad to quash the proceedings as against them under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that on the basis of the statement given by first respondent herein as CW1, Sulthan Bathery police has registered a case as Crime No.1050/12 alleging offences under Sections.143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 308 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and others. After investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No-I, Sulthan Bathery, where it was taken on file as C.P.No.37/13. Thereafter, it was committed to Sessions Court, Wynad, where it was taken on file as S.C.No.37/14 and it was made over to Additional Sessions Court, Wynad for disposal and it is pending before that court now. No offence under Section 308 is attracted in this case. None of the injured have sustained any injury of grave nature so as to attract the offence under Crl.M.C.No.1160 of 2014 : 2 : Section 308 of Indian Penal Code. Further, the petitioners have been selected for Army and Police Department respectively, pendency of this case will affect their future prospects. So, due to the intervention of respective persons and mediators, the de facto complainant and other injured persons have settled the dispute as far as the petitioners are concerned. The incident occurred as an aftermath of an incident occurred in the Co-operative College in connection with Arts Festival conducted in that college. Now, they are repenting for their act and unless the case against them is quashed recording the compositions they will be put to serious action. There is no public interest involved as well. So, they have no other option but to approach this court seeking the following relief:
"i) To quash Annexure 1 Final Report in SC 37/14 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Wynad, in the interest of justice."
3. CWs 1 to 3 who were shown as respondents 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and also filed Annexure A2 to A4 affidavits stating that considering the peculiar circumstances in which the petitioners are placed and non-quashing of the case against them will affect their future, they have decided to forgive them and settle the matter as far as the petitioners Crl.M.C.No.1160 of 2014 : 3 : are concerned. They have no objection in quashing the proceedings as against the petitioners.
4. The Govt.Pleader on instructions submitted that except this case, the petitioners have not involved in any other case and they have no criminal background as well.
5. It is an admitted fact that incident happened at the time when the petitioners were students of Co-operative College, Sulthan Bathery. It is also an admitted fact in connection with the incident, a crime was registered as crime No.1050/12 of Sulthan Bathey Police Station on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent herein alleging commission of offences under Sections.143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 308 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation and filing final report, the case is now pending before Additional Sessions Court, Kalpatta as S.C.No.37/14 and the present petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 6 and 7 in that case. It is true that the offences alleged are grave in nature. I am not at this stage going to the question as to whether the offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code will be attracted or not. But, going through the allegations and the overt act alleged against the petitioners in the incident, it appears that the allegations against the petitioners are not of grave nature. Further, CWs Crl.M.C.No.1160 of 2014 : 4 : 1 to 3 who are injured persons including the de facto complainant who are shown as respondents 1 to 3 in this petition have shown magnanimity in forgiving the wrongful act of the petitioners considering the fact that they have got employment opportunity in Army and Police Department respectively. Continuation of this case may affect their future as well.
6. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab 2012(4) KLT 108 (SC) held as follows:
"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in Crl.M.C.No.1160 of 2014 : 5 : relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc; or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of case, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
7. In the above decision, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that High Courts should not normally invoke Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of grave offences involving public interest. This incident Crl.M.C.No.1160 of 2014 : 6 : happened on account of some political affiliation of the petitioners in student politics while they were studying in Co- operative College. It is high time to repeat that students are now involving in such criminal activities, without understanding the consequences of the same and as to how it is likely to affect their future, on account of some instigation and enthusiasm given by the political parties. By the time they realize their folly, it has become too late for them as well. This is one such example. Now they realize their folly and that has been magnanimously forgiven by the injured persons as well considering the fact that this will affect their future and prevent from getting employment in the departments mentioned above. Though, this court is not expected to invoke the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure in a piece meal manner for quashing the proceedings against some of the accused persons alone, considering the peculiar circumstances in this case that these two petitioners have been selected in the Army and Police Department and they are awaiting postings and pendency of this case may affect their future and also considering the circumstances that even the injured persons have come forward magnanimously by forgiving the wrong acts committed by the petitioners considering their future, I feel Crl.M.C.No.1160 of 2014 : 7 : that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked so as to give them an opportunity to settle down in life and not to promote them as criminals in future. By getting employment, they may lead a peaceful and normal life. Further, since the injured persons have settled their dispute with the present petitioners, no purpose will be served by continuing this case as against the petitioners as there is no likelihood of any conviction being entered into against the petitioners also. So, I feel that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners alone.
So, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in S.C.No.37/14 (Crime No.1050/2012 of Sulthan Bathery police station) as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately for further action.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge