IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1941 [CASE NUMBER] AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1685/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 1510/2014 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC.M., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. M. ISSAC ABRAHAM, CHEENATH HOUSE, CHERAI P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 514. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAN (VYTTILA) RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2 AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, KUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, GANDHINAGAR, UDAYA COLONY, KADAVANTRA, ERNAKULAM. 3 SURESH VENUGOPAL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. VENUGOPAL, HOUSE NO.36, SNEHA NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTRA, ERNAKULAM SRI. RAMESH CHAND-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: [CASE NUMBER] 2 ORDER
This petition is filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT]
2. The petitioner herein is the accused in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
3. On 04.07.2014 at about 12 p.m, the petitioner herein is alleged to have abused the party respondents and thereafter assaulted them causing injuries.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the party respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the victims and the offender have arrived at a compromise and narrating the said fact, the victims have filed separate affidavits before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the records would reveal that no serious injuries were sustained by the victims. 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 respondents 2 and 3 would also refer to the affidavits filed by them 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 petitioner is not a person 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 Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].
9. 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 petitioner 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-A1 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam are quashed.
[ENTITY], JUDGE avs APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN FIR ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/3/2019 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/3/2019 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
[ENTITY] avs TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE