Viswanathan vs The Station House Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 24034 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. 5143 OF 2021
          CP NO.269/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
                         CLASS-I,KASARAGOD.
         CRIME NO.619 OF 2015 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

            VISWANATHAN,AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.LATE SHANKARAN,
            PANNEERKKAD, MAIPPADY, PATTA VILLAGE,
            KASARAGODE.
            BY ADV T.G.RAJENDRAN


RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

     1      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
            BADAIDKA POLICE STATION,
            KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 541.
     2      THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
            PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM-682 031.
     3      ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE,AGED 36 YEARS,S/O.MOHAMMED,
            DARBATHADKA, BELA VILLAGE, KASARAGODE-671 321.
            R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.REKHA
            R3 BY ADV N.KRISHNA RAJA MAULI


      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.5143 of 2021                                  2




                                  VIJU ABRAHAM,J.
                 .................................................................
                             Crl.M.C. No.5143 of 2021
                 .................................................................
                Dated this the 28 day of December, 2021
                                           th




                                         ORDER

Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.619 of 2015 of

Badiadka Police Station, now pending as C.P.No.269 of 2017 on the files

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod. This Crl.M.C

has been filed to quash Annexure-II Final Report and all further

proceedings in C.P. No.269 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod arising out of Crime No.619 of 2015 of

Badiadka Police Station which has been registered alleging commission

of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326 and

308 read with Section 149 IPC. Annexure-II is the Final Report in Crime

No.619 of 2015 of Badiadka Police Station. It is alleged by the

prosecution that the accused due to previous enmity attacked the

defacto complainant and wrongfully restrained him and voluntarily

caused grievious hurt to him by beating with hands and stabbing with a

knife.

2. As the offences alleged are triable by the Sessions Court,

the final report was taken on file and the learned Magistrate committed

the case to the Sessions Court, which was numbered as S.C.No.232 of

2018. At the time of committal proceedings the petitioner was not aware

of the pendency of the case as he was away from his native place and

his case was split up and refiled as C.P.No.269 of 2017. It is submitted

by the petitioner that as regards accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, the case

was committed and the same was taken on file as S.C.No.232 of 2018

and trial was conducted before the Additional Sessions Judge-II,

Kasaragod. As the issue was settled between the de-facto complainant

and the accused persons who faced the trial, the defacto complainant

who was examined as PW3 turned hostile and therefore as per

Annexure-III judgment in S.C.No.232 of 2018, accused Nos.1,3,4 and 5

were acquitted holding that there is absolutely no legal evidence

available on record to connect the accused with the alleged commission

of crime. The factum of settlement between the parties and that they are

maintaining good relationship as of now was brought to the notice of the

Additional Sessions Judge by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

and also the learned counsel appearing for the accused as is evident

from Annexue-III judgment in S.C.No.232 of 2018. Further that, the 3rd

respondent who is the defacto complainant has sworn to an affidavit

dated 15.09.2021 which is produced as Annexure-IV confirming that the

dispute between him and the petitioner has been settled and that they

are maintaining a harmonious relationship and in view of the settlement

he has no intention to proceed further with the above case against the

petitioner and has no objection in quashing the crime case registered

against the petitioner.

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

the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled between the

parties and 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.

4. 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.

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

settled. The affidavit sworn in by the de facto complainant would

specifically state that he has no further grievance and do not want to

proceed with the prosecution of the above case.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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-2 Final Report and

all proceedings in C.P. No. 269 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod arising out of Crime No.619 of 2019

of Badiadka Police Station, Kasaragod District shall stand quashed.

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

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM Judge

cks

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5143/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CR.NO.619/2015 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION.

Annexure II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN SC 232/2018.

Annexure III CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO.232/2018 DATED 10.01.2020.

Annexure IV COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.09.2021.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES             NIL