Vishal Kumar Vs. Jerry Thomas Varghese - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE14H DAY OF MARCH201423RD PHALGUNA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1252 of 2014 () --------------------------- CC.NO. 382/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, PATHANAMTHITTA ...................... CRIME NO. 778/2010 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION ,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------------- 1. VISAL KUMAR,AGED22YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, VISAL BHAVANAM, KALYATHARA JUNCTION, VENMANI WEST MURI, VENMANI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 643.

2. ABHISHEK NANDHAN, AGED23YEARS, S/O.NANDAKUMAR, MALAKKARA, MALAKKARA MURI, ARANMULA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 533. BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDETS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JERRY THOMAS VARGHESE,AGED21YEARS, S/O.M.THOMAS, MANALIL BLUE BELL HOUSE, KALLUMALA, MANKAMKUZHY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 558 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1403-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts CRMC.NO.1252/2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.778/2010 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION ANNEX B COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (CWI)/1ST RESPONDENT SIGNIFYING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT COMPOSITION OF THE DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K. Ramakrishnan, J.

============================== Crl.M.C.No.1252 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 14th day of March, 2014. ORDER

This is an application filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.382/10 (Crime No.778/10 of Aranmula Police Station) now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Pathanamthitta, to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.778/10 of Aranmula Police Station which was registered on the basis of the statement given by first respondent as de facto complainant alleging offences under Sections.323, 324 and 341 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, Annexure A final report has been filed which was taken on file as C.C.No.382/10 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Pathanamthitta. There were several incidents occurred while they were students in the campus and this is one such incident. Now, the matter has been settled between the students involved in the case. No purpose will be served Crl.M.C.No.1252 of 2014 :

2. : by proceeding with the case in view of the settlement. Since some of the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature, they could not file application for compounding before the court below. So, they have no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief. "To allow this criminal miscellaneous case and quash Annexure A final report in Crime No.778/2010 of Aranmula Police Station and proceedings pursuant to the same, now pending as C.C.No.382/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, so as to secure the interest of justice." 3. First respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that the incident happened at the time when they were students of Mount Zion Engineering College, Kadammanitta and now the difference of opinion between them have been settled and now they have become friends and he does not want to proceed against the petitioners and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings and the first respondent has filed Annexure B affidavit state these facts. The Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that though there were three cases against the first petitioner, one of such case was quashed by this court as per order in Crl.M.C.No.5077/13 and only another case is pending in which Crl.M.C.No.1252 of 2014 :

3. : the de facto complainant is not available. So, he could not settle that case as well.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners have involved in several crimes and one more crime namely Crime No.341/12 of Aranmula Police Station is still pending and so he opposed the application.

5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners and first respondent were students of Mount Zion Engineering College, Kadammanitta, at the time when the alleged incident happened. It is also an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by first respondent Crime No.778/10 of Aranmula Police Station was registered and after investigation, Annexure A final report was field and it was taken on file as C.C.No.382/10 and now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Pathanamthitta. It is also in a way admitted by the Counsel for the petitioners and the first respondent that, apart from this case, there were two other cases registered against the petitioners and others in respect of some incident happened in the college campus and one such case namely Crime No.175/12 of Aranmula Police Station Crl.M.C.No.1252 of 2014 :

4. : which later taken on file as C.C.No.825/12 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Pathanamthitta was settled and that was quashed as per order in Crl.M.C.No.5077/13 dated 4.11.2013 by this court and they have produced the copy of the order of that judgment for perusal of this court as well. It is also in a way admitted that another case as Crime No.341/12 of same Police Station is pending against the first petitioner alone which was also a case where the incident occurred while he was a student of the same college.

6. It is quite unfortunate that student community now a days are involving in criminal activities at the instigation of political bosses without knowing the consequences of their act that it is likely to affect their future. It is also quite unfortunate that student community now a days who are involving such activities are not understanding the pain that is being taken by the parents for providing them good eduction. They are going to college, involve in such activities on the anticipation that they will become political bosses of tomorrow. But, unfortunately, they are not reaching their goal as well. But, only involved in criminal offences which affect their future. Crl.M.C.No.1252 of 2014 :

5. : But, considering the fact that these incidents happened on account of some political motivation that has been created in the young minds without knowing the consequences and now they have completed the course and realized their fault of involving in such crimes on the protects of some political motivation and they want to reform themselves and settle there in life and the pendency of these cases should not be a hurdle for their future, only on that the humanitarian ground, the courts will have to take a lenient view in such cases and pardon them for the act committed by them during their student days without knowing the consequences that they are now facing.

7. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT108(SC)], it is held as follows: "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious Crl.M.C.No.1252 of 2014 :

6. : offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc; or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of case, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 8. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and these incidents have happened at the time when they were students and now they realize and they feel that pendency of these cases is likely to affect their Crl.M.C.No.1252 of 2014 :

7. : future and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the student relationship and friendship between the students have been restored on account of the settlement, this court feels that it s a fit case the power under Seton 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the harmony that has been restored between the student community and to protect their interest of getting settled in their life by getting good employment, for which, this should not be a hurdle. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.382/10 (Crime No.778/10 of Aranmula Police Station) is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for further necessary action. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge