IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 614 of 2011() ------------------------ CP.66/2010 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SURESH, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, THENGAKKUTTIL VEEDU, KANDIOOR MURI, MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2. SUDEEP, S/O.KRISHNAKUTTY, KOLLAMAPRAMBIL VEEDU, KANDIYOOR MURI, MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE - 690 103. 3. CHANDRARAJAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN ACHARI, PADARETHU VEETTIL, KANDIYOOR MURI, MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE - 690 103. 4. RAJAN, S/O.RAMASWAMI, RAM NIVAS, KANDIYOOR MURI, MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE - 690 103. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.614 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the 5th accused in C.P. No.66 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikkara for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on 31.01.1999 at about 9.35 p.m. accused including petitioner who belonged to the DYFI, formed unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the death of the de facto complainant, a RSS activist due to political enmity, committed rioting armed with deadly weapons like sword-sticks, knife, churika (a doubled edged sword), way-laid the de facto complainant-C.W.1 and attacked him while he was taking part in a procession to the temple. It is alleged that accused 1, 2 and 3 assaulted the de facto complainant with sword-sticks and inflicted serious injuries. His right ring finger was chopped off. It is alleged that the 4th accused stabbed the de facto complaint while petitioner-5th accused stabbed him with churika and inflicted injuries. Accused 6 and 7 are stated to have assaulted the de facto complainant with CRL.M.C. No.614 of 2011 -: 2 :- sword-sticks. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the strength of Annexure-A2, judgment by which some of the other accused were acquitted for want of evidence. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 [3] KLT 19 (SC), Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008 [3] KLT 769 [SC]) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 [4] KLT 417 [SC]) rendered by the Supreme Court where proceeding against accused was permitted to be quashed following settlement with the de facto complainant. Leaned counsel submits that petitioner is prepared to produce affidavit of the de facto complainant in the present case to show that the case is settled between petitioner and the de facto complainant. 2. I must bear in mind that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel involved offences which were purely personal in nature and did not in any way affect the public. 3. In deciding whether the cases are to be quashed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be it on account of compromise reached with the de facto complaint the High Court has to look into the CRL.M.C. No.614 of 2011 -: 3 :- facts of the case and nature of the offence involved. In the present case offences involve unlawful assembly and rioting armed with deadly weapons (apart from attempt to cause death of the de facto complainant) which involve public tranquility and peace. Offences under Secs.143, 147, 148 read with Sec.149 of the Penal Code are offences against public tranquility and peace. It is not merely personal to the assailant and the victim. I must also bear in mind that the alleged attack was well preplanned as seen from the allegations in the final report and the manner in which it was carried out. Petitioner and other accused way-laid the de facto complainant and attacked him while he was taking part in a procession to a Temple. Deadly weapons are alleged to be used. Petitioner allegedly stabbed the de facto complainant with a churika (a double edged sword). The right ring finger of the de facto complainant was chopped off apart from other cut injuries he suffered. Motive is political rivalry. I am not persuaded to think that in a situation where political activists take on their adversaries on the public street with deadly weapons such as country bombs and swords the High Court could afford to be lenient to persons accused of such offences by showing indulgence in quashing proceedings so that persons CRL.M.C. No.614 of 2011 -: 4 :- accused of such serious offences need not even face trail. Such a course would only give a wrong message to the law breakers indulging in violation of public tranquility and peace and give them encouragement. 4. So far as Annexure-A2, judgment is concerned, the mere fact that some of the accused are acquitted for want of evidence is no ground by itself to quash proceeding against petitioner. Petitioner who got released on bail made himself not available for trial whatever be his explanation for that. Having regard to the nature of the offences and circumstances which I have stated including the nature of the attack, weapons used and the fact that offences affecting public tranquility and peace are involved, I am not persuaded to think that this is a fit case where be it on account of acquittal of other accused for want of evidence or the alleged settlement reached with the de facto complainant that this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and quash proceeding so that petitioner need not face the trial. He has to face trial. 5. However having regard to the fact that since a NBW is issued against petitioner I am inclined to keep the NBW in abeyance for a period of two weeks from this day so that in the CRL.M.C. No.614 of 2011 -: 5 :- meantime petitioner could surrender in the trial court and seek bail as provided under law. With above direction this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv