Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12235
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BEN THOMAS JOHN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/3155/2022
SUNIL KUMAR A.G GEORGE MATHEW PRAVEEN S.MATHEW K.T. GEORGE K.V. STEPHY K REGI
The court established that amicable settlements in private disputes can lead to quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prioritizing the parties' future prospects.
Headnote:
Ragging - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 143, 149, 294(b), 506(i), 323; Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 - Section 4 - The court quashed proceedings based on a private settlement, interpreting legal provisions on settlement and quashing in light of the nature of the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, students of a management college, were charged with multiple offences, including ragging. The de facto complainant filed an affidavit stating that the dispute was settled, prompting the accused to seek quashing of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the settlement genuine and acknowledged that the dispute was private. Following the precedent in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, it deemed further prosecution unnecessary.
Issues: Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings can be quashed based on a settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that private disputes, especially among students, can be settled amicably, allowing for quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when no public interest is at stake.
Final Decision: The FIR in Crime No.229 of 2022 and all further proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
O R D E R
The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.229 of 2022 of Vagamon Police Station, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 149, 294(b), 506(i) and 323 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and also offences punishable under Section 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act , 1998. The petitioners are the students of DC School of Management and Technology, Vagamon and they are undergoing their B.Com degree course.
2. The prosecution case is that on 31.03.2022 at 12 am, the accused persons called the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant who is a student in the very same college and asked him to reach room No.10 in ‘A’ Block of the boy’s hostel and upon reaching there, the 3rd respondent was assaulted and verbally abused by the petitioners herein. Annexure-A1 is the FIR in this case. This Crl.M.C. is filed to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1.
3. Heard Sri.A.G.Sunil kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Stephy K.Reji, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
4. Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-A2 affidavit sworn by the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant is filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavit, the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no-objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant also confirms the same. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Station House Officer concerned has verified the veracity of the same and found it to be genuine.
5. The allegations would reveal that the dispute is purely private in nature. In such circumstances, by applying the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court inGian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ], proceedings can be quashed by invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This is particularly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.
6. It is true that the offences alleged against the petitioners includes offence punishable under Section 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act , 1998. Apart from the above, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the 1st petitioner is involved in another case, wherein the offence under , 1998 is incorporated. However, considering the fact that, all the parties are students and they have arrived at settlement, a lenient view can be taken. While taking such a decision, I have taken into account the future prospects of the petitioners as well. In such circumstances, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C., even though the offence under Section of
4 of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act , 1998 is also incorporated.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-A1 FIR submitted in crime No.229 of 2022 of Vagamon Police Station and all further proceedings thereof, against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
