Allowed

Arun Ghosh v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC26 Jul 2016Crl.MC/4116/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kashmir quashed criminal proceedings against accused who had reached an out-of-court settlement with the complainant. The court held the offence was personal in nature, parties had no acrimony, and the prosecution served no further purpose, allowing for peace and harmony.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against Petitioners (Accused Nos. 1 to 4) in C.C. No. 231 of 2014 shall stand quashed.

Arun Ghosh Vs Sub Inspector of Police — 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

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2016/4TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4116 of 2016

¶6

C.C.NO.231/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, (FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO. 6/2012 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 4 :

¶9

1. ARUN GHOSH,

¶10

S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 29 YEARS, PULIKKAPPARAMMEL HOUSE, MULAVALLUR AMSOM, VILAYIL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2. NASAR,

¶12

S/O. ABDU RAHIMAN, AGED 39 YEARS, VADAKKETHODI HOUSE, OMANNUR AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

3. ALI AKBAR,

¶14

S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 45 YEARS, MANGATTUPARAMBIL, KOTTEKKATT, AMANNUR AMSOM DEOSM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

4. MOOSA,

¶16

S/O.KUTTIALI, AGED 39 YEARS, KUNIYAM MOOCHIKKAL HOUSE, MUVALLOOR AMSOM, PARATHIKKAT DESOM, NEAR L.P SCHOOL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶18

SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :

¶20

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM- 676 505.

¶21

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶22

..2/-

¶23

..2..

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 4116 of 2016

¶25

3. BIJIN.T, S/O.JINACHANDRAN, AGED 28 YEARS, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, NOONHIKKARA, ANATHAYUR ROAD, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶26

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABDURAHIMAN (POOLACKAL KARATCHALI)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

Msd.

¶29

Crl.MC.No. 4116 of 2016

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶32

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CR NO.6/2002 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION.

¶33

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶40

----------------------------------------

¶41

Crl.M.C. No.4116 of 2016

¶42

-----------------------------------------

¶43

Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2016

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.231 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-II,(Forest Offences), Manjeri. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.6 of 2012 of Vazhakkad Police Station registered at the instance of the

¶46

3^rd respondent alleging offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 324 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶47

2.The prosecution allegation is that on 3.1.2012 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioners had wrongfully confined the 3^rd respondent and assaulted him.

¶48

3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the third respondent and the learned public prosecutor.

¶49

4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of

¶50

Crl.M.C.4116/2016 2

¶51

court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The 3^rd respondent has sworn to an affidavit wherein he assert that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶52

5.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents.

¶53

6.It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar

¶54

that the parties have amicably settled their disputes by their own free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon.

¶55

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303), Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the 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. This view was reiterated

¶56

Crl.M.C.4116/2016

¶57

¶58

in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .

¶59

After having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel

¶60

and on perusing the records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶61