Aji v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/20TH PHALGUNA, 1936 IN CP 128/2014 of J.M.F.C.-II,TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO. 579/2009 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/A1 TO A5:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. AJI @ FANTOM @ KOCHUPODI AGED 41 YEARS S/O.SATHYAN, TNRA 239, BALA NAGAR VETTUKAD WARD, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. RAJESH @ UNDAS RAJESH S/O.MOHANAN, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, NEAR KURISHU CHURCH KANNANTHURA, KANNANTHURA WARD, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 306.
3. RAJEEV @ SHYAM S/O.STEPHEN, TC 32/107, NEAR GURU MANDIRAM PUTHUVAL VEEDU, BALA NAGAR, VETTUCAUD WARD KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 306.
4. VARGHESE AGED 33 YEARS S/O.THOBIAS, TC 80/143, BALA NAGAR VETTUCAUD WARD, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 306.
5. RAJESH AGED 32 YEARS S/O.MANIYAN, TC 32/80, BALA NAGAR COLONY VETTUCAUD WARD, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 306.
BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE, CW1 & CW2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. HOGIN, AGED 19 YEARS S/O.STALIN, TC. 78/3853, BALA NAGAR COLONY VETTUCAUD WARD, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 306.
3. LEENA T.C. 78/3853, BALA NAGAR COLONY, VATTUCAUD WARD KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 306. R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.RAJESH R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE. P. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 579/2009 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE B: AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/CW1. ANNEXURE C: AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPODENT/CW2. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE sab
P.UBAID, J.
------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2015.
O R D E R
The petitioners herein are the five accused in C.P No.128 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. Committal proceeding was registered for the reason that one of the injured in the crime was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident. Now he has attained majority. The petitioners seeks orders quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between them and the de facto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 427 r/w 149 of IPC on the complaint of one Hogin who is the second respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and he has no grievance or complaint now. The other person who sustained injuries in the alleged incident is the respondent No.3 in this proceeding. She has also filed
affidavit to the effect that she has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and she has no grievance or complaint now. In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash the prosecution in pending proceedings, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, and continuance of the proceedings will not serve any purpose in such a circumstance of amicable settlement. Here, I find a real and genuine case of settlement between the parties. This is not a case involving any public interest or public issue. The parties have come to terms amicably on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides, and I am satisfied that the parties are now on quite cordial terms.
In such a situation, continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court. No doubt, nobody will support the prosecution in such a situation, if the case goes to trial. In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.P No.
Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab