IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1941 Crl.MC.No. 1920 of 2019 AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.P.NO.43/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I(FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA [CASE NUMBER] OF MUTTOM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI PETITIONER/ACCUSED: JOMIN JOSEPH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, THAZHATHEN HOUSE, MUTTOM VILLAGE, PAZHAYAVAYAL KARA AND DESOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL SMT.N.S.HASNA MOL SHRI.VISHNU DAS SMT.ANILA UMESH SRI.K.AMAR RAGH RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUTTOM POLICE STATION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3 PRAKASH JOY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.JOY, PALLIKARA VEETTIL, PAZHAYAMATTOM KARA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.J.GISHA OTHER PRESENT: R1 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC:1920/2019 2 ORDER
The petitioner herein is the 1 st accused in [CASE NUMBER] on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thodupuzha. In the said case, he is being prosecuted for having committed offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
2. This petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is filed seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the entire disputes have been settled.
3. The F.I.Statement, which was lodged by the de facto complainant on 4.9.2018, would reveal that the de facto complainant is a driver by profession. On 3.9.2018 at about 5 p.m., he had occasion to go to a toddy shop at Pazhayemattom, wherein he met the petitioner. Some money was due to the de facto complainant from the petitioner, which he demanded. This led to an altercation. When the informant left the place, the petitioner is alleged to have followed him in his car and with intent to murder, dashed him down. He sustained serious injuries and had to be removed to the nearby hospital. The wound certificate would show that the de facto complainant had suffered fracture of his distal ulna, and other injuries.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after registration of the aforesaid case, the disputes have been settled. To persuade this Court to quash the proceedings, the learned counsel had relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. He would refer to the affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A3, and would submit that the continuance of proceedings as against the petitioner is an abuse of process and exercise in futility.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the petitioner herein after picking up a quarrel with the de facto complainant, while under the influence of alcohol, followed him in a car and had dashed him down causing serious injuries. It is submitted that investigation was completed and final report has been laid before the jurisdictional court on 08.10.2018. He would also submit that the petitioner is the accused in [CASE NUMBER] registered under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT] and it was while he was on bail in the said crime, the petitioner has committed the instant offence. It is further submitted that the application for cancellation of bail in the initial crime filed by the prosecution was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. In both the cases, the petitioner is evading from the investigation and still has not surrendered before the court or the police. Finally, it is submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded by the police and he has disclosed that the disputes have not been settled.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced.
7. In [PRECEDENT] (supra), a Bench of three learned Judges of the Apex Court adverted to the body of precedents on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Courts are to consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. It was held that before proceeding to exercise the power to quash the proceedings, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and the impact that it may have on the society. Those crimes having overwhelmingly civil flavour and those offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire disputes can fittingly be quashed in exercise of powers under [SECTION] of the Code. However, grave offences or those offences which do not fall in the realm of a private dispute or which would have an impact on the society are not liable to be quashed. It would not be out of place to mention that in State of M.P. v. Manish and Others [(2015) 8 SCC [SECTION]] and also in [PRECEDENT], it was held that offences which would fall in the grave category and those cases which cannot be treated as a private dispute between the parties inter se, but is to be held to be a crime against the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT]
8. In the case on hand, records reveal that the cases in which the petitioner is involved relate to grave and serious offences and include those registered under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The de facto complainant sustained very serious injuries and this cannot be regarded as a case involving a private dispute. Having given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced, I am of the view that this is not a fit case warranting invocation of powers under [SECTION] of the Code to quash the proceedings. The petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional court and co-operate with the trial.
This petition will stand dismissed.
[ENTITY], JUDGE KRJ TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN [CASE NUMBER] OF [ACT] AND PENDING BEFORE THE [ENTITY] AS C.P.43/2018.
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN [CASE NUMBER] OF [ACT] AND PENDING BEFORE THE [ENTITY] AS C.P.43/2018.
ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-NIL