IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4185 of 2008 ---------------------------------- ( CRIME NO. 525/08 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ----------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW JACOB, S/O.P.M.JACOB, PUNNAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ESM COLANI, KULATHOOPPUZHA, KOLLAM. 2. JAYESH J., S/O.JAYAKUMAR, VASUDEVA VILASOM, KADACKAL, KOLLAM. 3. RENJITH R.G., S/O.REGHUNATHAN, LEKSHMI BHAVAN, BHAJANAMADOM ROAD, PEYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANTS: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JALU GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, ATTUPURAM VEEDU, CHERUVATHOOR P.O KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. RETHU KRISHNAN, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, NELLIPPALLI, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., KADAKKAL. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4185 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused 1 to 3, who face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998. The crime has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed before the police by the Principal of the College. Investigation is in progress. 2. At this stage, the petitioners have come before this Court along with the students/victims, who were allegedly ragged, to submit that the disputes between them have been settled and respondents 2 and 3 have compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. The offences have not been declared to be compoundable in law. But the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 pray that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT Crl.M.C.No. 4185 of 2008 2 19), Nikil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC) may be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioners. 3. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who opposes the application. The learned Prosecutor submits that the Investigator wants this application to be opposed. According to the learned Prosecutor the facts of the case do not at all attract the dictum in the three decisions referred above. The alleged victims cannot be reckoned as the sole aggrieved persons in a crime like the instant one. In fact the victims are not the complainants. It is the Principal of the college, who filed the complaint. The mere fact that the victims now submit that they have no grievance or even the fact that they have not raised any grievance at the first instance or that they had never wanted any action to be taken against the senior students, who had allegedly ragged them are, according to me, irrelevant while considering whether the proceedings deserve to be continued further or not. Crl.M.C.No. 4185 of 2008 3 4. It must be reckoned that ragging is not merely an offence against students/victims. All the instances of ragging must be held to be against the community as a whole and must be reckoned as a culpable act vitiating the atmosphere in an educational institution. The mere fact that the victims have now compounded the offences or have been persuaded to say that they have compounded the offences is no reason for this court to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction. The dispute in the instant case cannot be reckoned as a dispute, which is purely private and personal between the alleged offenders and the alleged individual victims. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the continuance of the prosecution is likely to seriously prejudice the interests of the petitioners. He prays that there may atleast be an observation that the Investigating Officer must make every endeavour to expeditiously complete the investigation in the crime. That request appears to me to be legitimate. I need only observe that the Investigating Officer must make every endeavour to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible. Crl.M.C.No. 4185 of 2008 4 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the F.I.R. has been registered on the basis of the complaint of the Principal of the Institution, the police in the course of investigation has filed a report to substitute the individuals/victims in the place of the Principal as the complainant. That report notwithstanding, the provisions of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act clearly reveal that it is the duty of the Principal to complain and in the absence of complaint, the Principal must be deemed to have abetted the commission of the offence. That report filed by the Investigating Officer does not at all alter my conclusion reached above. 7. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but with the above observations regarding expeditious completion of investigation. (R. BASANT) Judge tm