IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1914 of 2009(F) -------------------------- CC.1237/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS. 1-4 ---------------------------------------------------- 1. USMAN,S/O.MUHAMMADUNNY,AGED 19 YEARS, PANIKKAVEETHIL CHORATH,THAIKKAD VILLAGE,DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. HONEY RAVINDRAN,S/O.RAVINDRAN,AGED 19 YRS,KONDARAPPASSERY HOUSE,ORUMANAYOOR, THRISSUR(DIST). 3. VISHNU PRABHAKARAN,S/O.PRABHARAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE,AYYANTHOLE,PUTHURKKARA, THRISSUR(DIST). 4. SUBIN,S/O.SASI, AGED 19 YEARS, KUNDALIYOOR HOUSE,ENGANDIYOOR,THRISSUR(DIST). BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AJAY,S/O.PREMNATH,AGED 18 YEARS, 'PRASANTHI',TRAMWAY LANE,SUBASH NAGAR,CHALAKKUDI, THRISSUR(DIST). 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R1 BY SRI.K.T.SYAM KUMAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. =================== Crl.M.C. No. 1914 of 2009-F =================== Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.1237/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam. Prosecution case is that due to the vengeance against the first respondent, who is a junior student of the petitioners in I.E.S.College of Engineering, Chittilappilly, on 23-2-2007 at about 2.30 PM, in furtherance of the common intention, petitioners caught hold of first respondent from the road in front of the college, and questioned him whether he is dare enough to file a complaint against the seniors, beat him and thereafter forcibly took him to the house where the petitioners were residing and questioned him after wrongfully confining him and subjected to ragging and thereby committed the offences under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 and Sections 342 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the incident had happened while the Crl.M.C.No.1914/2009-F -2- petitioners are students and the dispute was settled with first respondent later and first respondent is not intending to proceed against the petitioners and hence applying the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Aboot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 SC) the case is to be quashed. Along with the petition an affidavit (Annexure II) of the first respondent stating that there was a settlement of the dispute and he has no objection to quash the proceedings was filed. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. First respondent also appeared through a Counsel. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though there is an allegation that first respondent was subjected to ragging, a reading of the F.I.statement and the final report reveal only that as first respondent had lodged a complaint against the petitioners before the Principal, first respondent was retained and beaten by the petitioners and when first respondent himself stated Crl.M.C.No.1914/2009-F -3- that he has settled the disputes with the petitioners and has no objection for quashing the proceedings, no purpose will be served by directing petitioners to undergo the trial and therefore the case is to be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement of the first respondent recorded subsequently shows that there was a settlement of the dispute by the petitioners and first respondent. 5. The enactment of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 is to serve a social purpose and was essentially to eradicate the social evil of ragging from the educational institutions, which affects not only the physical but the mental health of students. If such an offence is to be quashed invoking the extra-ordinary powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the reason that there was a settlement of the dispute with the person, who was subjected to ragging and the person who subjected him to ragging, it would make the enactment a dead enactment and the enactment will serve no purpose. If such an attempt Crl.M.C.No.1914/2009-F -4- is upheld, an undesirable message would be percolated in the society that even if an offence under the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act is committed, by subjecting the juniors to ragging in violation of the Act, there is nothing to fear as the victim could be made to settle the dispute later and the case could be got quashed. 6. While considering the prayer to quash such a case, court cannot be blind on certain realities of life. The evil of ragging is spreading for the reason that the victim of the previous year becomes the offender of the next year. He is guided not by the ill-effects which he experienced, but the desire to treat his juniors with the same amount of cruelty he experienced. Unfortunately the bad experiences are forgotten and he is guided by his desire to outshine his offender. Thus thrives the ragging. It may be that when the victim of yesterday, turns to an offender, he is prepared to forgo the treatment experienced from his senior and thereby agrees for a settlement with that senior. If acting on that settlement the case pending for the offences of ragging is to be quashed, it Crl.M.C.No.1914/2009-F -5- would in effect make the enactment itself valueless. The negative impact if such a course is adopted cannot be ignored. When the purpose of enactment is to eradicate this social evil from the educational institutions for the welfare of the student community at large, the quashing of the case is against public interest. 7. When the quashing of the case would in effect make the enactment ineffective, this court shall not exercise the extra-ordinary inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the proceedings as sought for. The prayer to quash the case can only be rejected. If the grievance of the petitioners is that continuation of the proceedings would cause difficulty as they are completing the course, they are at liberty to seek expeditious disposal of the case before the Magistrate. If petitioners file an application for early disposal of the case, Magistrate to dispose the case expeditiously. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr