IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/6TH ASHADHA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 3748 of 2016 C.C.NO. 402/2015 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOLLAM CRIME NO. 7/2015 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER(S) : VINEESH MOHAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, RESIDING AT REVATHI HOUSE, HOUSE NO. 69/563, KANNACHANTHODU ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU P.O, ERNAKULAM-682 018. BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT(S) : 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. SANDEEP JOHNSON, S/O.J.JOHNSON, RESIDING AT H.NO.14/2000-A, CHAKKALAKKAL VEEDU, R.K.PILLAI ROAD, KARUVELIPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 015. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.AJOY VENU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. Crl.MC.No. 3748 of 2016 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE A : A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT CRIME NO. 07 OF 2015 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION OF ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE B : THE AFFIDAVIT, SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 07-07-2016. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL TRUE COPY P.S.TOJUDGE Msd. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J Crl.M.C. No.3748 of 2016 Dated this the 27th day of June, 2016 O R D E R
1.The petitioner is the sole accused in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-II, Ernakulam. The said case has arisen from [CASE NUMBER] of Kadavanthara Police Station, registered at the instance of the second respondent herein, alleging offence punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
2.In this petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the aforesaid proceedings are sought to be quashed by invoking the powers of this Court on the ground of settlement.
3.The prosecution allegation is that on 10.12.2014 at about 6.45 PM, the petitioner had assaulted the de facto complainant and had abused him.
4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record.
6.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.
7.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT
108) and [PRECEDENT] and other cases. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-II, Ernakulam, shall stand quashed.
[ENTITY] JUDGE vps