IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4260 of 2008()
1. JAGARAJAN @ JAYAN,
... Petitioner
2. V.C. SUNILKUMAR, S/O. NARAYANAN,
3. V.C.VIPIN, S/O. PANKAJAKSHAN,
4. V.C. RIJIN, S/O. BHASKARAN,
5. V.C. NIDHIN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. KIRAN, S/O.PRADEEP, AGED 19 YEARS,
3. PRADEEP KUMAR N.T., S/O.NARAYANAN,
4. REENA.C.T., W/O.PRADEEP KUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :05/12/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 4260 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioners along with the 5th respondent are accused 1
to 6 in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under
Sections 452 and 308 r/w. 149 I.P.C. Respondents 2 to 4 are the
alleged victims/ injured in the case.
2. The crux of the allegations is that on account of
political animosity the accused persons trespassed into the
residential building of respondents 2 to 4 on the night of
10.4.2008 and indulged in wanton acts of violence resulting in
serious injuries to the second respondent, a political activist.
The rival contestants belong to Congress and B.J.P. A prior
incident, in respect of which a complaint had been laid before the
police, had operated as the alleged motive for the incident.
3. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been
filed. Committal proceedings has been registered by the learned
Magistrate and it is at this stage that the petitioners have come
Crl.M.C.No. 4260 of 2008
2
before this Court with a prayer that the extra ordinary inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), Nikil
Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769) and Manoj Sharma v.
State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC) may be invoked to bring to premature
termination this prosecution against the petitioners and the 5th
respondent, which has now become irrelevant and unnecessary.
4. Respondents 2 to 4 have entered appearance before this court
through a counsel. They have confirmed that the disputes have been
settled and the offences have been compounded by them.
5. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor, who opposes the
application. The learned Prosecutor submits that the offences alleged
include serious and grave offences. They include non-compoundable
offences punishable under Sections 452 and 308 I.P.C., not to speak of
Sections 143, 147 etc. There is nothing personal or private between
the parties. Interests of public justice and issues of public interest are
involved. In a democratic polity law must frown upon attempts to
Crl.M.C.No. 4260 of 2008
3
resort to violence to settle political scores. In these circumstances the
learned Prosecutor submits that the State is unable to agree that the
composition can be accepted and the prosecution against the petitioners
and 5th respondent can be quashed.
6. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The learned
Prosecutor has placed the case diary before me. I have gone through
the final report and the wound certificate describing the injuries
suffered by the principal injured, the second respondent. After
considering all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded to agree that there is
merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor.
7. All crimes are offences against the State and composition by
individual aggrieved person cannot in pure theory of law justify
discontinuance of the indictment against those culpably responsible.
The law specifies certain offences to be compoundable and only in
such offences can composition by victims ipso facto lead to
termination of criminal prosecution against the indictees.
8. In a line of decisions it has now been held that the mere fact
that the offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. would
Crl.M.C.No. 4260 of 2008
4
not fetter the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. Reliance is
placed in the decisions in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003
SC 1386) as also the decisions referred above in support of this
proposition. The learned Prosecutor argues that the mere fact that the
parties have compounded the offences even when the offences are non-
compoundable is not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. The crucial question is whether the dispute is one which is
private and personal between the indictees and the victims. Even when
the offence is not compoundable, in an appropriate case, it will be open
to the court to hold that the dispute is one which is private and
personal between the parties. This court has alertly got to verify
whether any issues of public justice or the interests of public are
involved. Only if those questions are answered in the negative, can the
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be invoked on the ground that
there has been a composition of the non-compoundable offences.
Crl.M.C.No. 4260 of 2008
5
9. I have adverted to this aspect of the matter in the decisions in
Santhoshkumar v. Mohanan (2008 (3) KLT 461 and Babeesh @
Babin Kumar v. S.I. of Police (2008 (3) KHC 713). I am satisfied,
in the facts and circumstances, that it is impossible to come to a
conclusion that the dispute is one which is private and personal
between the parties. Going by the materials collected, it is political
animosity which has prompted the accused persons to trespass into the
residential building of the victims after making sufficient prior
preparations and to indulge in the acts of violence. I am, in these
circumstances, satisfied that the mere fact that the victims i.e. R2 to R4,
have compounded the offences is no reason for this court to
mechanically invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say
dismissal of this petition will not fetter the option of the petitioners to
raise all relevant contentions before the trial court. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case there may atleast be a direction for
Crl.M.C.No. 4260 of 2008
6
expeditious completion of the trial. After appearance, the petitioners
can make that request before the trial court. Needless to say, such
request must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and in
accordance with law.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm