High Court Kerala High Court

Thomas Antony vs The State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Thomas Antony vs The State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2398 of 2008()


1. THOMAS ANTONY, AGED 22 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. VINUL VENUGOPAL, S/O.VENUGOPAL,
3. JERIN.J.PODIPPARA, S/O.JOSE IMMANUEAL
4. ANOOP SASI, S/O.SASIDHARAN,AGED 22 YEARS
5. NITTU RAVI ABRAHAM, S/O.RAVI ABRAHAM,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. VISHNU SANKAR, S/O.NARAYANAN POTTI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.R.RAJESH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :28/08/2008

 O R D E R
                           R.BASANT, J.
                        ----------------------
                     Crl.M.C.No.2398 of 2008
                    ----------------------------------------
             Dated this the 28th day of August 2008

                               O R D E R

The petitioners herein are accused 1,2 and 6 to 8 in

C.C.No.811/2007 pending before the JFMC-I,

Thiruvananthapuram. Altogether there are eight accused

persons in that crime. Altogether there are seven injured

persons also in that crime. Investigation is complete. Final

report has already been filed. Charges are raised under Sections

143,147,341,323 and 427 read with 149 I.P.C. There was a case

and a counter case. The counter case has already been

withdrawn by the Government, it is submitted. It is at this stage

that the petitioners have come before this court with a prayer

that C.C.No.811/07 pending before the JFMC-I,

Thiruvananthapuram may be quashed invoking the extraordinary

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the

dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR

SCW 2287]. The second respondent is the de facto

complainant. All the seven injured persons/victims have been

brought on the array as respondents 2 to 8. The petitioners,

along with respondents 2 to 8 report to the court that the

Crl.M.C.No.2398/08 2

disputes between them have been settled amicably and that

respondents 2 to 8 do not want any further proceedings against the

petitioners or the other accused to continue. All the substantive

offences alleged are compoundable. Except the allegations raised

under Sections 143 and 147 I.P.C, all other offences are

compoundable. Of course, vicarious liability is alleged invoking

Section 149 I.P.C.

2. The respondents have entered appearance through

counsel. They have filed affidavits which are numbered as

Annexures B to H. The learned counsel on their behalf asserts that

respondents 2 to 8 have no objection whatsoever against the

quashing of proceedings against all accused persons invoking the

extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. I am satisfied from the averments in the Crl.M.C as also

the affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 8 as Annexures B to H that

there has been a harmonious settlement of the disputes between the

parties. If legally permissible and possible, I am satisfied that the

composition can be accepted and unnecessary continuation of the

further proceedings against the petitioners and the other co-

accused can be brought to termination.

4. Though the offences under Sections 143 and 147 are not

compoundable, I am satisfied that the dictum in Madan Mohan

Crl.M.C.No.2398/08 3

(Supra) can safely be invoked. That decision is authority for the

proposition that an unnecessary technical view should not be taken

by courts in situations like this. Ground realities must be taken note

of. Unnecessary and non-productive continuation of the

proceedings must be discouraged. The judicial time must be put to

optimum and profitable use. Bearing in mind the principles in the

dictum in Madan Mohan (Supra), I am persuaded to agree that

this is an eminently fit case where powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C

can safely be invoked to quash C.C.No.811/07 pending before the

J.F.M.C-I, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioners herein as

also the other accused.


      5.    In the result,

      a)    This Crl.M.C is allowed.

      b)    C.C.No.811/07      pending    before     the     J.F.M.C-I,

Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioners and the other three co-

accused is hereby quashed.

c) Proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any pending

against the petitioners and the co-accused or their sureties shall be

disposed of in accordance with law.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr

Crl.M.C.No.2398/08 4

Crl.M.C.No.2398/08 5

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.No. of 2008

ORDER

09/07/2008