Allowed

Febin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 May 2016Crl.MC/1840/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition for quashing criminal proceedings involving an inter-group student clash outside an engineering college. Relied on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh) to hold that since the dispute was settled amicably, involved students without serious injuries, and did not affect public tranquility, continuance of prosecution was futile.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings qua the petitioners in Crime No.243/2016 of Sreekaryam police station shall stand quashed.

Febin Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2016/28TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1840 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 243/2016 OF SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. FEBIN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SHOUKATHALI,RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEPATTOTHU HOUSE, 47/1026, CHULLIYODU, VENGARI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673010.

¶9

2. ANIRUDH.N.P, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.PROMOD SINGH.N.P, RESIDING AT NANGANADATH HOUSE, NOCHIKKADI PARAMBU, CHEVARAMBALAMP.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673017.

¶10

3. ASWANTH.T.P, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, RESIDING AT THEKKE ALUVLLA VEEDU, EZHUKONE.P.O, KOLLAM.

¶11

4. ASWIN.J, S/O.R.C.JAGADEESHAN SUBRAMANIAM, AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT CRA 63 (12), VRINTHAVAN, LIC COLONY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

5. SIDDHARTH.S, S/O.SURESH KUMAR.P.R, AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAMBU MANA, UC COLLEGE PO, EAST KODUNGALLOOR, ALUVA.

¶13

6. BINU.S, S/O.SASIDHARAN.P, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUVARAYYATHU PADEETTATHIL KARAMAKARA BHAGOM, POMMANA.P.O, CHAVARA,

¶14

KOLLAM.

¶15

7. ARJUN RAJU, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.RAJU.P.V, RESIDING AT KRISHNA SAROVARAM HOUSE, NEELESHVARAM.P.O, KASARAGOD, PIN-671314. --2--

¶16

--2--

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 1840 of 2016 ()

¶18

8. VISHNU.A.V, AGED 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT USHAS, PATTENA, NEELESHVARAM.PO, KASARAGOD,PIN-671314.

¶19

9. ANANTHU RAJEEV, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.K.K.RAJEEV, RESIDING AT KUNNATHU THEKKEETHIL, VAZHAMUTTAOM EAST PO, MALLASSERI, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶20

BY ADVS.SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ

¶21

SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

¶22

RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

1.STATE OF KERALA,

¶24

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶25

2.JISHNU.P.P, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.GANESHAN, RESIDING AT PUTHIYARA PADAMAYIL HOUSE,PUTHIYARA PO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673010.

¶26

3.SREEHARI, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT KURUPPATH HOUSE, NEAR CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-676505.

¶27

4.SREENATH.C, AGED 21 YEARS,

¶28

S/O.SUGUMARAN, RESIDING AT PADIYARA HOUSE, ANANDASHRAMAM, VIA ATENGANAM.P.O,

¶29

KASARAGOD-671121.

¶30

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P R4 BY ADV. SRI.AJOY VENU

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

mbr/

¶33

Crl.MC.No. 1840 of 2016 ()

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶36

ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.243/2016,OF THE SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE B : THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT VICTIMS.

¶37

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL ------------------------

¶38

//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.1840 of 2016

¶41

Dated this the 18^th day of May, 2016

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

1.On 27.02.2016, an incident took place involving two groups of students at the CET Engineering College, Trivandrum. The registration of the instant crime alleging offence punishable under S.143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323,

¶44

324 and S.308 of the IPC is an offshoot of the said incident.

¶45

2.This petition filed under S.482 of the Cr.P.C is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 9 in Crime No.243/2016 which was registered by Sreekaryam police station. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are the de facto complainant and the injured witnesses.

¶46

3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.

¶47

Crl.M.C.No.1840 of 2016 : 2 :

¶48

4.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that Annexure B affidavit attested by a notary public has been sworn to by the respondents, in which, they have asserted that they have settled the dispute with the petitioners amicably and they do not intent or wish that the criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioners should continue. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely personal in nature and therefore, would not affect public peace or tranquility and prays that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote harmony.

¶49

5.The learned public prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents and being students at the time of commission of the offence, the state has no serious objection in acting on the basis of the affidavit and in terms of the pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court.

¶50

6.In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶51

Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the

¶52

Crl.M.C.No.1840 of 2016 : 3 :

¶53

High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows :

¶54

“61. 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 proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

¶55

7.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶56

in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC

¶57

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶58

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

¶59

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be

¶60

Crl.M.C.No.1840 of 2016 : 4 :

¶61

distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code.No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶62

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶63

(i) ends of justice, or

¶64

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶65

xxxxxxx

¶66

xxxxxxx

¶67

8.In cases where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility and when it is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice, the inherent powers under Section 482 can very well be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. In such cases persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a

¶68

Crl.M.C.No.1840 of 2016 : 5 :

¶69

waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.

¶70

9.In the case on hand, though offence under S.308 is also incorporated, the records would reveal that the injured witnesses have not sustained any serious injuries.

¶71

10.In view of the above, the continuance of proceedings arising out of the above crime would be an exercise in futility and the criminal proceedings pending as against the petitioners can be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under S.482 of the Code.

¶72

11.In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings qua the petitioners in pursuance to Crime No.243/2016 of Sreekaryam police station shall stand quashed.

¶73

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,

JUDGE.

[True copy]

P.A to Judge

Febin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Febin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbal Vs Muneer

Anju@Bidesh Vs Sujith

P J Jose Vs State of Kerala

Nijas Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Vs the State of Kerala