Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 584 (KER)

SWAMI SIVANANDAYOGI v. STATE OF KERALA

2015-06-02

ALEXANDER THOMAS

body2015
ORDER : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The petitioner in Cri MC No. 5776/2014 is the accused No. 1, the four petitioners in Cri MC No. 5775/2014 are accused Nos. 2, 4, 6 & 7, the petitioner in Cri MC No. 5773/2014 is accused No. 3 and the sole petitioner in Cri MCNo. 5774/2014 is accused No. 5 respectively in Annexure-B FIR in Crime No. 345/ 2010 of Valanchery Police Station registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) & 308 r/w 149 IPC. The brief of the prosecution case is that on 08/11/2010, the aforesaid petitioners had formed themselves into unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object had attacked the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant and caused injuries to him and that accused No. 1 had inflicted injury on the head of the de facto complainant using a knife and the other accused persons had kicked and beaten him with hands and that if the 2nd respondent had not evaded, death could have resulted The police after investigation submitted Annexure-C Final Report/charge-sheet in the above said crime. The case against the sole petitioner in Cri MC 5776/2014 is now pending as SC No. 49/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri. The case against the four petitioners in Cri MC No. 5775/2014 is pending as SC No. 378/2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri. The case against the petitioner in Cri MC No. 5773/2014 is pending as SC No. 445/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri and the case against the petitioner in Cri MC No. 5774/2014 is pending as CP No. 41/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur. It is pointed out that the accused persons and the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant are residents of the same locality and that there was earlier incident of attack between two rival groups in connection with election to the Local Self Government Institutions. Police investigation is also pending in that incident. It is alleged that political animosity of the earlier incident is the motive behind he present incident which led to the impugned crime. In view of the recurrence of the incident elders in the society including political leaders and respectable personalities of the locality intervened in the matter so as to bring harmony among the rival political groups. It is alleged that political animosity of the earlier incident is the motive behind he present incident which led to the impugned crime. In view of the recurrence of the incident elders in the society including political leaders and respectable personalities of the locality intervened in the matter so as to bring harmony among the rival political groups. The petitioners (accused) and the 2nd respondent are now fully convinced of the necessity to keep cordial relationship among them so as to lead a peaceful life in the locality and continuance of fie impugned criminal proceedings in this case will not in any way help the peace and harmony attained through such negotiations. Both parties have agreed to settle all their disputes and that the 2nd respondent has no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Annexure-D is the affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant in all these cases. It is also pointed out that there was some other connected matters in which the petitioners were complainants and the rival group members were the accused and that in order to secure peace and harmony in the locality Government have issued direction for granting permission for withdrawal of those pending cases. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have filed these Crl MCs seeking quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings. 2. Heard Sri. P. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioners in ail the Crl MCs and Sri. M. Revikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in all these cases and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Kerala. 3. Petitioners have also made available a copy of the Government Letter No. 59522/L4/11/Home dated 04/05/2012 issued by Government of Kerala, Home (L) Department wherein Government has given permission for withdrawal of some of the criminal cases which are said to be connected with the tensions between these two rival groups and in some cases the group of the petitioners was said to be the complainants and the de facto complainants group are stated lo be the accused etc. The prosecution has pointed out that the accused in the present impugned Annexure-C crime is also the accused in Crime No. 336/2010 of Valanchery Police Station and in Crime No. 338/2010 of Valanchery Police Station and that the accused 5 & 6 in the present crime are also accused in Crime No. 338/2010 etc. A copy of the above said Government Letter No. 59522/L4/11/Home reads as follows: "I am to inform you that Government have no objection to withdraw with the leave of the Court the case in CC No. 260/08 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur corresponding to Cr No. 183/08 of Valanchery Police Station, CC 933/10 and its counter case in CC 854/10 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur corresponding to Cr No. 337/10 and 336/10 of Valanchaery Police Station, CC 1596/11 and its counter case in CC 934/10 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur corresponding to Cr No. 362/10 and 338/10 of Valanchery Police Station under Section 321 CrPC. Necessary instructions in this regard may be given to the Public Prosecutor/ Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned." The Public Prosecutor was earlier requested to get instructions and the Prosecutor confirmed the aforementioned Government Letter. 4. It is pointed out that CC No. 260/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur arising out of Crime No. 183/2008 is not directly connected with the present petitioners. It is pointed out that in CC No. 933/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur (arising out of Crime No. 337/2010) the petitioners are the complainants and injured and that the matter was settled and that prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and the accused persons were acquitted. In the counter case referred to above in CC No. 854/2010 on the file of the above said Magistrate Court (arising out of Crime No. 336/2010) the petition for withdrawal of the prosecution is to be moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned immediately. In CC No. 1596/2011 of the same Court (arising out of Crime No. 362/2010), the petitioners are the complainants and the injured and due to the above settlement, the matter was settled and the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and accused belonging to the rival groups were acquitted. In CC No. 934/2010 of the same Court (arising out of Crime No. 338/2010), the case against some of the accused was settled. In CC No. 934/2010 of the same Court (arising out of Crime No. 338/2010), the case against some of the accused was settled. The prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the accused persons were acquitted and the case as against one accused was split up as he was abroad and is pending as CC No. 2041/2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all these cases and counter cases involving respective impugned crime as well as the other related crimes referred to in the Government Letter arose out of political rivalry and disputes between the two political parties viz, Muslim League and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and even the Government was convinced that the need for securing peace and harmony by granting permission for withdrawal of prosecution as referred to above. 5. On a consideration of overall facts and circumstances emerging in this case, it can be seen that the present impugned crime arose out of political rivalry between the two rival groups and the incident occurred during the time of election to the Local Self Government Institutions. Though the present impugned crime is not included in the Government Letter referred above, it is pointed out that all the incidents were related out of the rivalry between the two political groups. Even the Government was convinced that for securing peace and harmony permission was granted to withdraw the prosecution in some of the related matters referred to above. Many of the other cases referred in the Government Letter are said to be those in which the petitioner group are the complainants and the group of the de facto complainant herein are said to be the accused. In those cases, some of the cases accused were acquitted consequent to settlement as the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. The de facto complainant herein has sworn to separate affidavit in all these cases stating that he has no objection whatsoever for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings as the disputes have been settled between the parties and that he has no grievance against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant submits that this Court may exercise its discretion to consider the prayer for quashment as situation has radically changed and peace and harmony could be substantially achieved by the settlement initiated at the behest of political leaders and respectable personalities of the locality concerned. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant submits that this Court may exercise its discretion to consider the prayer for quashment as situation has radically changed and peace and harmony could be substantially achieved by the settlement initiated at the behest of political leaders and respectable personalities of the locality concerned. Taking overall assessment of the totality of the facts and circumstances of these cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer for quashment could to considered in the light of the legal principles well settled in the case Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 : 2014 KHC 4195 : 2014(3) KHC SN 44 : 2014(2) KLD 167 : 2014(4) SCALE 195 : ILR 2014(2) KER. 85 : 2014 (2) KLJ 252 : 2014 (2) KLT SN 61 : 2014 CRILJ 2436. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered in Cri MC No. 5776/2014 that the impugned Annexure-C Final Report/charge-sheet filed in Annexure-B FIR in Crime No. 345/2010 of Valanchery Police Station which has led to the pendency of SC No. 49/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri and all further proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner therein shall stand quashed. In Crl MC No. 5775/2014 it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-C Final Report charge-sheet filed in Annexure-B FIR in Crime No. 345/2010 of Valanchery Police Station which has led to the pendency of SC No. 378/2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri and all further proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners therein shall stand quashed. In Crl MC No. 5773/2014 it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-C Final Report/charge-sheet filed in Annexure-B FIR in Crime No. 345/2010 of Valanchery Police Station which has led to the pendency of SC No. 445/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri and all further proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner therein shall stand quashed. In Crl MC No. 5774/2014 it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-C Final Report/charge-sheet filed in Annexure-B FIR in Crime No. 345/2010 of Valanchery Police Station which has led to the pendency of CP No. 41/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur and all further proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner there in shall stand quashed. The petitioners in respective Crl MCs shall produce a certified copy of this order before the Station House Officer concerned as well as before the Court below concerned. 7. With these observations and directions, the above captioned Cri MCs stand finally disposed of.