IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 27TH BHADRA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.5970 OF 2019(E) CRIME NO.610/2018 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS CC NO.1430/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KASARAGOD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 HARISH P., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, SHIVAKRISHNA NILAYAM, N.M. COMPOUND, PACHAKKAD, R.D. NAGAR P.O., KUDLU, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. 2 AJAY P., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O CHUKRAN, PERNADUKKAM HOUSE, R.D. NAGAR P.O., KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. 3 RADHAKRISHNAN @ TINGU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O ITHAPPA, NELKALA COLONY, VIDYANAGAR P.O., KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 JEEVAN J.S., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O JANARDHANAN, SHIVAKRISHNA VILAYAM, NEAR SHIVA KSHETHRA, R.D. NAGAR P.O., KUDLU, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 124. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.BABY R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. MAYA M.N. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: [CASE NUMBER] 2 ORDER
Invoking the powers of this Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT] ("the Code", for short), the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the 2 nd respondent herein, which is now pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod as [CASE NUMBER]. In the above proceeding, they face indictment for offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT].
2. From the prosecution records, it is discernible that the allegation is that on 25.08.2018 at 9 pm, the petitioners wrongfully restrained the party respondent and attacked him causing injuries.
3. Heard Sri.[ENTITY], the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.[ENTITY], the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondent submitted that after much deliberations, the victim has resolved his disputes and differences with the petitioners and he has now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to the affidavit filed by the victim before this Court and asserts that he has no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victim and the offenders, the possibility of conviction is bleak and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will only inure to put both the parties to oppression and prejudice. Both sides submit that the wrong is basically private in nature and no public interest is involved.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that the petitioners are not involved in any other crimes. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings against them in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records.
8. The factors that are to be borne while exercising the powers conferred on this Court by [SECTION] of the Code in the context of considering a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of resolution of disputes between the offender and the victim have been laid down by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another2; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. It was held that the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court, as recognized and preserved by [SECTION] of the [ACT], is primarily to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The guiding light behind the exercise of inherent power is to do real, complete and substantial justice. It was also held that while examining the prayer for quashing of a non compoundable offence, on the basis of settlement of the dispute between the wrongful doer and the victim, this Court must necessarily consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and oblique and further as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would lead to oppression and prejudice. The courts were reminded that the antecedents of the accused, possible lack of bona fides, his past conduct, including his earlier abscondance, and as to how he had managed to enter into a compromise with the victim are some of the factors which are to reckoned while exercising this extraordinary power. The Apex Court had also cautioned that this Court, when called upon to exercise the power under [SECTION] of the [ACT] to bring the criminal case to an end on the basis of settlement, 2 [(2013) 4 SCC 58] 3 [(2014) 6 SCC 466] 4 [(2017) 9 SCC 641] 5 [(2019) 4 SCALE 200] must steer clear of intervention in heinous or serious offences, including those involving mental depravity, as indeed economic offences affecting the financial and economic well being of the State, such as murder, attempt to murder, extortion, forgery, rape, dacoity, financial or economic frauds, cases under [ACT], etc. Those offences were held as having a tendency to have a serious impact upon the society and continuation of trial thereof is essential due to overriding element of public interest. It was also held that the mere fact that the police have incorporated a grave offence in the FIR or the final report would not be a deterrent if the records reveal that the ingredients of the offence are not made out.
9. In the light of the above principles, I have perused the prosecution records. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. I have also noted the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the statement of the victim has been recorded by the investigating officer and that he has asserted that it is not in his best interest that the prosecution proceedings continue. Having considered the case in hand on the touchstone of the aforementioned parameters, I am of the view 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 victim 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 petitioners now pending as [CASE NUMBER] on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod, are quashed.
[ENTITY], JUDGE krj TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CR. 610/2018 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A-2 AFFIDAVIT DATED 24-07-2019 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT