The petitioners herein are the five accused (Accused Nos. 1 to 5) in Crime No.1057/2014 of Anthikkad Police Station, Thrissur district. The crime was registered initially against accused 1 and 2 herein and three other unidentified persons. Later accused Nos.3 to 5 have also been arrayed in the accused array by the investigating officer. The offences alleged in the above said crime are those punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 323, 326 and 149 of the IPC. It is pointed out that the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) are friends, who are belonging to the same political party. The gist of the allegations in the crime is that the accused persons, on account of the provocation made by the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) who demanded lawyer's fee from the 1st accused, to be given in another case in connection with the incidents in S.N. College, while they were students, in which, the friend of the 1st accused and the defacto complainant were co- accused, on 22.6.2014 in front of the Chadayanmuri Smaraka Mandiram at Antikad, with the common object of causing hurt, the 1st accused hit on the face of the defacto complainant and the 2nd accused had beaten the defacto complainant with wooden stick, which resulted in the defacto complainant loosing 3 teeth and that accused Nos.3 to 5 assaulted the defacto complainant and thereby the accused committed the aforementioned offences.
2. Annexure-A1 is the FIR in the instant crime. The friend of the 1st accused along with the defacto complainant were accused in a case which occurred in S.N.College, Nattika, where both were members of the same students' union and the friend of the the 1st accused had not paid the lawyer's fees in connection with the case and the defacto complainant had compelled the 1st petitioner to put pressure on his friend to pay lawyer's fees, while they were engaged in a conversation in front of the party office at Anthikkad and that a scuffle broke out, in which, the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) is alleged to have sustained injuries. This is the gist of the case projected by the allegations in the aforementioned crime. It is stated that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are friends, students of the same college and members of the same political party and have amicably settled their differences. The defacto complainant (R-2) has sworn to affidavit dated 16.10.2014 before this Court, copy of which is produced as Annexure-A2 in this Crl.M.C., wherein it is stated that the 2nd respondent has amicably settled all the disputes and differences with the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.1057/2014 of Anthikkad Police Station and that the 2nd respondent and the petitioners are close friends and continue to be close friends and has no complaint against the petitioners.
3. Heard Sri.C.Harikumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.C.B.Anuroopa, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.
4. Sri.C.Harikumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire disputes arose out of misunderstandings and consequent differences of opinion between the petitioners on the one hand and the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) and that petitioners and the 2nd respondent are friends and that accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 and the 2nd respondent were students of the same college and have been members of the same political party and students'
union and that the 2nd respondent has amicably settled all the differences with the petitioners. It is further submitted that no useful purpose would be subserved by prolonging with the prosecution in these criminal proceedings. Smt.C.B.Anuroopa, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on specific instructions from the 2nd respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent has settled all the disputes with the petitioners and that the impugned criminal proceedings arose purely out of personal disputes between the parties and that occurred due to misunderstandings and resulted differences of opinion between the persons, who are close friends and it is submitted that the 2nd respondent has no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that this Court in the interest of justice may quash the impugned criminal proceedings or otherwise, the prolongation of the impugned criminal proceedings may detrimentally affect the relationship between the parties.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that this Court may consider the plea of the petitioners in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the issue.
6. The Apex Court in the case in Yogendra Yadav & ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2014 (8) SCALE 634, has dealt with the circumstances under which the power under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and in the said case, has quashed the impugned criminal proceedings therein which arose out of allegations for offences punishable under Sec.307 and other related offences. In the instant case the crime was registered due to the incidents, which occurred due to misunderstandings and differences of opinion between the persons, who are close friends. As the present disputes between the parties have been settled, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no necessity for prolonging the impugned criminal proceedings and that no useful purpose would be subserved by the continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings. On the other hand, the continuance of the prosecution is likely to unnecessarily strain the judicial, administrative and Police resources of the State. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the discretion under Sec.482 for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings could be exercised in the facts of this case.
7. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. The impugned Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.1057/202014 of the Anthikkadu Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioners shall forward certified copies of this order to the investigating officer concerned and to the jurisdictional Magistrate's court concerned.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge