Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45674
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
RIFIN P.P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5860 OF 2025 | CC NO.1126 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
For the Respondents: SHRI.JAMEEL AHAMMED M.S.
SRI. AJITH MURALI, PP.
The court may quash criminal proceedings when the dispute is amicably settled and no public interest is involved, particularly if the incident is deemed minor with no elements of the alleged crime.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 115(2), and 3(5) - Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 - Charges against accused regarding ragging - Incident found to be minor skirmish without elements of ragging; victim clarified lack of grievances - Settlement of dispute noted and arrest deemed unnecessary - Legal precedence for quashing such proceedings acknowledged. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Criminal Proceedings - Inherent powers of the court - The court may exercise discretion under inherent powers to quash proceedings, especially where no substantial public interest is involved, and proceedings would constitute abuse of process. (Paragraphs 9 and 10)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of complaint and accusations regarding ragging. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discussion on perspectives from all parties regarding the nature of the incident. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's rationale for quashing the proceedings due to amicable settlement. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025 Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1201 of
2024 registered at the Nilambur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 126 (2) and 115(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act , 1998, now pending as C.C No.1126 of 2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur.
2. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the Principal of the MES College, Mampad, alleging that, on 12.09.2024, while the 3rd respondent was proceeding on his motorcycle to participate in the Onam celebration being held in the College, the petitioners, of whom 1 to 4 are former students and the 5th, a third year student, intercepted the 3rd respondent and demanded that he should not go to the college on his motorcycle. When the 3rd respondent refused to abide by their command, he was assaulted by the petitioners.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the offence under the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act , 1998 is incorporated, the 3rd respondent had subsequently approached the Principal and clarified that he was not ragged by the 5th respondent.
4. Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent also reiterated that the incident is only a minor skirmish and no element of ragging is involved.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Principal of the institution had stated that some student had sent a complaint to the University Grants Commission regarding the incident and based on the direction received from the University Grants Commission, an enquiry was conducted by the Anti Ragging Committee and the 5th petitioner was found guilty. The complaint, which led to the registration of the crime, was thereupon submitted to the Station House Officer of the Nilambur Police Station along with a copy of the enquiry report.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute, which led to the incident and registration of the crime, is amicably settled and Annexure A2 affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent vouching this fact.
7. Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent also submitted that the dispute is settled and his client has no grievance against the petitioners.
8. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
9. Under normal circumstances, this Court would not exercise its inherent power when the offence under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act , 1998 is alleged, ragging being a heinous offence. As far as the case at hand is concerned, on careful scrutiny of the statements, including that of the victim, it is evident that the incident was only a minor skirmish among youngsters, which cannot be termed as ragging. All the more so, when the victim himself comes forward and says that he was not ragged by the accused.
10. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged and having perused the affidavit, the contents of which are vouched to be true and voluntary by the Counsel for the 3rd respondent, I am satisfied that no public interest is involved in this matter and the dispute has been settled amicably. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction. As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court inMadan Mohan Abbot v State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] , there is no impediment in granting the relief.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A1 final report and all further proceedings in Crime No.1201 of 2024 of Nil
