Back
2017 Supreme(Ker) 227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J.
AJINAS. A., AND OTHERS – PETITIONERS
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
Crl.M.C. Nos.9102 of 2016 & 146 of 2017
Decided On : 18-01-2017
For the Petitioner: ADVS. SRI. BINU GEORGE, SMT. HEMALATHA
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA, ADV. SMT. K. DEEPA (PAYYANUR)
The court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law.
Headnote:
Ragging - Criminal Proceedings - Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1988 - S.341, S.294(b), S.354, S.506(i) read with 34 of the IPC and S.4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1988
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with offenses under various sections of the IPC and the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1988 for allegedly committing acts of ragging against junior students in an educational institution. The victims initially reported the incidents but later expressed no desire to continue with the criminal prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the statements of the victims, the nature of the alleged offenses, and the precedents set by the Apex Court. It found that the alleged offenses were not grave and serious, and quashing the proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definitions of ragging under the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1988 and the precedents set by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to justify the quashing of the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed all further proceedings against the accused.
1. These petitions are filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.
2. The petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.9102 of 2016 are the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.146 of 2017 is the 4th accused in Crime No.1999 of 2016 of the Ezhukone Police Station. In the aforesaid case, they are accused of having committed offences punishable under sections 341, 294 (b), 354, 506(i) read with 34 of the IPC and under section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1988.
3. The petitioners herein are the 3rd semester students of the Mechanical Engineering Department and the respondents 2 to 5 are the 1st semester students of the Computer Science Department of the TKM Institute of Technology, Karuvelil. According to the prosecution, on one occasion, while the respondents 2 to 5 were returning from the college store, the 1st accused intercepted them. He got annoyed when they refused to acknowledge him as a senior student. Later, on 31.8.2016 the petitioners, cornered the party respondents and he is alleged to have threatened them. Thereafter on 7.9.2016 while the respondents were returning from the college store, the 2nd accused along with his friends, is alleged to have verbally abused them. Further, on 4.11.2016 and 8.11.2016 the petitioners are alleged to have used abusive and intemperate language towards the party respondents. Respondents 2 to 5 initially informed their faculty adviser who in turn reported the incident to the anti- ragging squad. In spite of being warned, the petitioners are alleged to have persisted with their objectionable acts. When repeated complaints were received, a grievance committee was constituted. The petitioners as well as the victims were asked to appear before the grievance committee. However, though the petitioners were identified, the respondents 2 to 5 refused to subscribe their signature in the complaint. The anti-ragging committee submitted a report before the Principal recommending action against the petitioners. The Principal in turn intimated the Sub Inspector of Police, Ezhukone Police Station based on which Annexure-A1 crime was registered.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, party respondents and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5, a minor incident which took place in the college was blown beyond proportion by certain quarters to suit their advantage. According to the respondents, the act committed by the petitioners did not amount to ragging and that is exactly the reason why they had refused to subscribe their signature. It is argued that there was some minor differences between two groups of students, and they had approached the faculty adviser to ventilate their grievance. It is further argued that the parties are good friends and referring to the affidavits sworn to by the respondents 2 to 5 it is submitted that they have no grievance.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to the report of the anti-ragging committee submitted that a casual incident which took place between two groups of students have been characterized as ragging and a crime has been registered. According to the learned counsel, the future of the petitioners who are 3rd semester Mechanical Engineering students will be snuffed out if the prosecution is permitted to continue. According to the learned counsel, the respondents have no further grievance in the matter and they pray that the proceedings be quashed.
7. In view of the contentions raised, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get specific instructions in this regard. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ezhukone Police Station have recorded separate statements of the respondents 2 to 5. In the said statements, the respondents have no case that the petitioners herein have committed any o
