Vishnuraj R. vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.3950/2016 of East Police Station, Kollam for offences punishable u/s.354, 506(ii) and 34 of IPC and Sections 92 and 177 of M.V. Act.

It was alleged by the prosecution that due to previous enmity towards the defacto complainant and her friends, the 1st accused riding a motorcycle and the 2nd accused as its pillion rider, threw a packet containing urine, on the body of the defacto complainant and her friends, who were walking along the road. They laid a complaint, pursuant to which crime was registered. After investigation, final report was laid as C.C. No.1530/2017. The petitioners have now approached this Court contending that the defacto complainant has agreed to settle the matter and they prayed for quashing the entire proceedings. To substantiate the settlement, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 relied on Annexure-2 affidavit affirmed by theCrl.Mdefacto.C.No.1094/2018complainant. The learned2 counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents 3 to 5 have no objection in quashing the proceedings. Other separate affidavits have also been filed by respondents 4 and 5, who were also allegedly walking along with the 3rd respondent.

Evidently, the allegation discloses highly disgusting and repulsive act on the part of the accused herein. However, it seems that they are not involved in any other criminal case. The defacto complainant and the other victims, after having pondered over the facts, have taken a conscious decision to give a quietus to the entire case and to condone them, having regard to their future. It appears that the contesting respondents were persuaded by the fact that the petitioners are young and that they may not repeat such activities in future. Evidently, they have taken a conscious decision and having regard to that, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the settlement has been conveyed to them by the respondents orally. Having considered this, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C and to quash the entire proceedings.