ORDER : 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. 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 offensive act against them let alone the offence of ragging. In the statement, It is specifically stated that they were perturbed by certain acts of the petitioners against one of their friends, which prompted them to approach the college authorities with a view to warn the petitioners. They have unequivocally stated to the officer that they are not desirous of continuing with the prosecution proceedings. The respondents also highlighted the fact that they had not given any signed complaint before the college authorities. 8. They have unequivocally stated to the officer that they are not desirous of continuing with the prosecution proceedings. The respondents also highlighted the fact that they had not given any signed complaint before the college authorities. 8. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the materials on record. 9. Ragging as defined under section 2(b) of the Act means doing of any act, by disorderly conduct, to a student of an educational institution, which cause or is likely to cause physical or psychological harm or raising apprehension or fear or shame or embarrassment to that student and includes teasing, abusing or playing practical jokes on, or causing hurt to, such student; or asking a student to do any act or perform something which such student will not, in the ordinary course, willingly, do. 10. The Apex Court has time and again emphasised the immediate need to ensure that the ugly scar of ragging is obliterated from the face of educational institutions. Not even an iota of leniency is to be shown in cases where there is positive evidence of violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Ragging Act, 1988. Ragging is a systematized form of human rights abuse, which cannot be condoned. Ragging can be in various forms and can amount to physical abuse or mental harassment. In some cases violence is also used, and students are physically tortured and psychologically terrorized. 11. However, in this case, it appears that no physical harm was inflicted on respondents 2 to 5. They have approached this Court and have filed affidavits stating a different version of the incident. It also appears that the respondents 2 to 5 had originally refused to subscribe their signature in the complaint. They assert that the incident of the nature alleged against the petitioners did not take place. Moreover, the respondents have also submitted that they have no grievance in the matter and in the affidavit filed have stated that they are not desirous of continuing with the criminal prosecution. 12. I have considered the submissions. 13. In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : "61. 12. I have considered the submissions. 13. In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : "61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings." 14. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the pertinent observations which are as under: XXXXXXXXXXXX 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 15.After having gone through the allegations, the contentions advanced by both sides, the statements of the victims recorded by the Investigating Officer and also taking note of the binding precedents of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. 16. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, these petitions will stand allowed. 16. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, these petitions will stand allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1999 of 2016 of the Ezhukone Police Station are quashed.