IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1941 [CASE NUMBER] AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN [CASE NUMBER] of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, NEDUMANGAD CRIME NO. 518/2017 OF Pangode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2: 1 [ENTITY], AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. VENUGOPAL, THRIVENI HOUSE, NELLIKUNNU, BHARATHANNUR, PANGODU, THRIVANDRUM-695 609. 2 [ENTITY], AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. VENUGOPAL, THRIVENI HOUSE, NELLIKUNNU, BHARATHANNUR PANGODU, THRIVANDRUM-695 609. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANGODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006 2 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 3 [ENTITY], AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], PANGODE, BHARATHANNOR, TRIVANDRUM-695 609. BY ADV. [ENTITY] (MADAVOOR) BY PUBLIC PROSECTOR SRI [ENTITY] THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: [CASE NUMBER] 2 ORDER
This petition is filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT]
2. The petitioners herein are the accused in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangadu. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT].
3. The prosecution allegation is that on 16.04.2017, the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant and caused injuries.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the party respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the victim and the offenders have arrived at a compromise and narrating the said fact, the victim has filed an affidavit before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the records would reveal that no serious injuries were sustained by the victim. The termination of proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the parties and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent would also refer to the affidavit and it is submitted that the parties have not only buried the hatchet, but also have decided to live peacefully in future. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in dragging these proceedings.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents and that the State has no grievance in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved.
8. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their own free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntary and genuine, and can be acted upon.
9. In [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
10. Having considered the submissions advanced and on perusing the records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. 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.
In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-I final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangadu are quashed.
[ENTITY], JUDGE avs APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO. 1372/2017 ON THE FILES OF HON'BLE FIRST CLASS JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEDUMANGADU, IN CRIME NO. 518/2017 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
[ENTITY] avs TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE