Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944 CRIME NO.1195/2017 OF Paravoor Police Station, Kollam CC 14/2018 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SANALKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS S/O CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT BHARANI VEEDU, KURUMANDAL B CHERRY, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 631319 BY ADVS. ELIZEBATH GEORGE J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SHEREEF S, AGED 64 YEARS S/O SALAM, GAZHAL VEEDU, THEKKUMBHAGAM CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691319 ADDL.3 ASWIN S/O KUMAR, AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT AMBAYIL VEEDU, POLACHIRA CHERY, CHIRAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT ADDL.4 ASHOK KUMAR S/O PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANANDABHAVANAM, NEAR AYIRAVALLY TEMPLE, KOONAYIL CHERY, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT (ADDL.R3 AND R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.09.2022 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1 OF 2022 IN CRL.M.C.NO.5558 OF 2022)
BY ADV ADV.M.RAJESH ADV.SREEJA V. - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1195/2017 of Paravoor Police Station, which is now pending as C.C. No.14/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 146 read with 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The prosecution case is that on 27.04.2017. The vehicle
driven by the petitioner collided with a two wheeler owned by the 2nd respondent, and he sustained injuries therein. Moreover, in the incident, the vehicle belonging to CW3 sustained some damages, and CW4 suffered some injuries as well. Annexure A1 is the First Information Report and Annexure A2 is the Final Report submitted
by the Police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to it.
3. Heard Sri.J.S. Ajithkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.M.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.
4. The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought
by the petitioner on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled, and to substantiate the same, the respondents 2 to 4, who are CW1, CW3 and CW4 respectively, have sworn
Annexure A3, Annexure IV and Annexure V affidavits respectively. The aforesaid affidavits indicate that, the matter has been settled and the respondents 2 to 4 have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner herein. They also conveyed that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the respondents 2 to 4 have reiterated that, they do not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner herein.
5. Going through the materials available on record, it is discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on
account of the settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioner herein were allowed to continue, as far as the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned . In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that, going by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked, so far the as the prosecution relating to the offences under section 279,338 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. However, as regards the offences punishable under
Section 146 read with Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act are concerned, those relate to the act of driving a vehicle without a valid insurance policy. The said offences cannot be treated as one arising from a private dispute. Driving a vehicle without obtaining an insurance policy, as mandated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, is an offence against the public at large. The insistence
for taking an insurance policy for the vehicle is to ensure that the motor accident victim is adequately compensated. For that reason, the prosecution for the said offence cannot be quashed based on the settlement between the parties.
7. However, since I have already quashed all the other
offences based on settlement between the parties, that would result in a technical difficulty in continuing the prosecution for the offences section 146 read with section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is because, the aforesaid offences are non-congnizable and therefore, no prosecution for the said offences can be instituted on the police report, unless there is permission in this regard by the jurisdictional Magistrate under section 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. In this case, the prosecution could be initiated for the said offences, as there were cognizable offences in the final report and hence by the operation of subsection (4) of section 155, the said offence was deemed to be a cognizable offence. However, since I have quashed the prosecution for the cognizable offences, an independent prosecution for the offences under section 146, read with section
196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be continued based on such a final report. Therefore, the consequence is that the entire prosecution is liable to be quashed. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed, Annexure A2 final report submitted in Crime No 1195/2017 of Paravur Police Station, and further proceedings pursuant to the same, including the proceedings in C.C.No 14/2018 on the files o the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur as against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5558/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CCNO.14/2018 OF JFMC PARAVOOR. Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.08.2022