Sujith M. Nair vs Damodharan Nair
2021 Latest Caselaw 24033 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
     TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 7TH POUSHA, 1943
                      CRL.MC NO. 5376 OF 2021
   CC NO.1984/2018 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
                         CLASS,THIRUVALLA
        CRIME NO.917 OF 2013 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

          SUJITH M. NAIR,AGED 27 YEARS,S/O MOHANAN,
          MALIMEPURATHU HOUSE, KUNNATHUKARA, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE,
          THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 546.
          BY ADVS.
          M.T.SURESHKUMAR
          R.RENJITH


RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

    1     DAMODHARAN NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS,S/O RAGHAVAN PILLAI,
          RADHAKRISHNA BHAVAN, NEAR N S S U P SCHOOL, OTHARA,
          ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,
          PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 546.
    2     STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031
          R1 BY ADV JOSE ANTONY


          R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.SEETHA



     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC No.5376 of 2021                                2




                                  VIJU ABRAHAM,J.
                 .................................................................
                             Crl.M.C. No.5376 of 2021
                 .................................................................
                Dated this the 28 day of December, 2021
                                           th




                                         ORDER

Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.917 of 2013 of Thiruvalla

Police Station which was registered alleging commission of offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326

and 427 IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 13.05.2013 while the

defacto complainant was returning in his scooter after attending a festival,

the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and

the 2nd accused assaulted him with an iron rod and accused Nos. 3 to 5

fisted and stabbed him and that he lost a gold chain having five sovereigns

in the said incident.

2. After investigation, Annexure-A2 final report was filed and

thereafter the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla took

cognizance of the offence and issued process for appearance of the

accused by registering C.C.No.928 of 2013 initially against accused Nos.1

to 5. After trial in C.C.No.928 of 2013, 2nd and 5th accused were

acquitted. Subsequently, C.C.No.991 of 2018 was registered against the

rest of the accused, ie., accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and they were shown as

accused Nos.1 to 3. Case was taken up for trial and in the trial only

accused Nos.1 and 3 participated and they were acquitted as per

Annexure-A3 judgment. A perusal of Annexure-A3 judgment would show

that the defacto complainanat who was examined as PW1 in that case,

has deposed that the real assailants are unknown to him and he conceded

that the matter is settled with A1 to A4 and he has no grievance as against

them. PWs 2 to 4 who are occurrence witnesses also turned hostile and

deposed that they have not witnessed the incident and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the remaining witnesses as their

evidence will not improve the prosecution case and in view of the same

accused Nos.1 and 3 were acquitted as per Annexure-A3 judgment.

3. The case against the petitioner has been splited up and refiled

as C.C.No.1984 of 2018 and the same is pending trial. Moreover, the 1st

respondent who is the defacto complainant has filed an affidavit in this

case swearing that the entire matter has been settled amicably by the

parties and he has no objection in quashing all further proceedings

initiated on the basis of the final report in Crime No.917 of 2013 of

Thiruvalla Police Station and also to compound the offences which are

compoundable.

4. When the case came up for hearing, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled between the

parties and that the de facto complainant had sworn in an affidavit stating

about the settlement. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant also

submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and the

defacto complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case against the

petitioner.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that

the matter has been settled between the parties and a statement to that

effect has been given by the defacto complainant.

6. It appears that the issues between the parties have been

settled. In the affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant it is specifically

stated that he has no further grievance and do not want to proceed with

the prosecution of the above case.

7. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012 (10)

SCC 303 : 2012 KHC 4530) a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court while dealing with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 has held that the inherent power of High Court under Section 482

could be invoked to quash criminal proceedings involving non-

compoundable offences in view of the compromise arrived at by the

parties.

8. In Ramgopal and another v. State of Madya Pradesh (2021

SCC Online 834) the Apex Court reiterated that the extra ordinary power

enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be invoked

beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

9. It has come out from the affidavit sworn in by the defacto

complainant and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

and also the learned Public Prosecutor that matter has been amicably

settled between the parties. No public interest is involved and the issue is

purely private in nature. Considering the nature of the offence and keeping

in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred

to above, I am of the opinion that there is no impediment in quashing the

proceedings against the petitioner and further continuance of the

proceedings against the petitioner also will not serve any purpose. In view

of the above, Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.

No.1984 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Thiruvalla arising out of Crime No.917 of 2013 of Thiruvalla Police Station

shall stand quashed.

The Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM Judge

cks

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5376/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 917 OF 2013 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION DATED 14.5.2013 Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 917 OF 2013 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION DATED 25.5.2013 Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO 991/2018 ON THE FILE OF JFCM, THIRUVALLA DATED 11.12.2018 Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT EXAMINED AS PW1 BEFORE COURT OF JFCM, THIRUVALLA DATED 10.12.1018 Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2 ON 10.12.2018 IN CC NO 991/2018 ON THE FILE OF JFCM, THIRUVALLA Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW3 ON 10.12.2018 IN CC NO 991/2018 ON THE FILE OF JFCM THIRUVALLA Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW4 ON 10.12.2018 IN CC NO 991/2018 ON THE FILE OF JFCM, THIRUVALLA

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES NIL