IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 1179 OF 2024 CRIME NO.1511/2021 OF Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 384/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2,1,3 & 4:

1 RAHUL K.S AGED 29 YEARS S/O SUBRAMANNIAN, KUNNATH VEEDU, SREENARAYANAPURAM KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DT,, PIN - 680664

2 AKARSH AGED 28 YEARS S/O JEGATHEESH, KRISHNARJUNAM VEEDU, CHERAKUNNU, PUNNASSERY, KANNUR RURAL,, PIN - 673585

3 NITHIN S KUMAR AGED 27 YEARS S/O SUNIL KUMAR PUTHEN VEEDU, KIZHAKKUMURI PERUNGATTUKARA, THRISSUR,THRISSUR CITY,, PIN - 680565

4 KRISHNANUNNI AGED 28 YEARS S/O BABU TC 41/2296, SARAS, VLRA,MANACAUD,FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009 BY ADV S.S.VISWAJITH ANAND RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE FORT POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695036

3 SUBASH BOSE AGED 63 YEARS S/O BHASKARAPILLAI TC 22/982, ATTUKAL MANACAUD VILLAGE ATTUKAL WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009 BY ADV PRANAVE R. ARAVIND OTHER PRESENT:

SMT. SREEJA V. (PP)

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No. 1179 of 2024 ----------------------------------------

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2024 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.384 of 2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.1511 of 2021 of Fort Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 279, 294(b), 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, apart from Sections 146 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. According to the prosecution, the accused had on

14-07-2021 drove a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without having any insurance, and the accused abused the defacto complainant and thereby committed the offences alleged.

3. Though the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the matter has been settled, it is noticed that the vehicle was driven on a public road without having a valid insurance. Driving a vehicle without valid insurance affects public interest. The requirement of valid insurance is essential, not only for the individual driving the vehicle but also for the public. Hence, there is a predominant public interest involved in the instant case.

4. When public interest is involved in a case, the Supreme Court has observed in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653] that the prosecution proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties.

5. In view of the above proposition of law, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the settlement between the defacto complainant and the accused can be accepted for quashing the proceedings.

Accordingly, I dismiss this Crl.M.C.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1179/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO

1511/2021 OF THE FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure A II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 384/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-

II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED26/10/2023 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TRUE COPY