@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Thomas P. Joseph, J.@mdashPetitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No. 542 of 2006 of Thrikkakkra Police Station and C.C. No. 2768 of 2007 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva for offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b) and 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") and Sections 4 and 6 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 (for short, "the Act"). The de facto complainant is impleaded as additional second Respondent. Petitioners originally wanted to quash proceeding against them on the contention that registration of the case, submission of final report and cognizance taken are illegal being in violation of provisions of Section 6 of the Act. After the additional second Respondent was impleaded, he has filed an affidavit stating that the matter is settled between the parties. Learned counsel for Petitioners submitted that in the circumstances stated above, proceeding against Petitioners may be quashed. I have heard learned Counsel for additional second Respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor as well. Learned Counsel for additional second Respondent has confirmed the settlement and authenticity of affidavit sworn by additional second Respondent which is attested by his counsel.
2. Section 4 of the Act deals with penalty for commisison of offences referred to in the said Act and u/s 6, when any student, parents or guardian of such student or a teacher of a educational institution makes a complaint in writing to the head of the educational institution regarding ragging of such student, the latter has to enquire into the matter within seven days of receipt of the complaint and if the complaint is prime facie found true, apart from resorting to other responsibilities stated therein he shall immediately forward the complaint to the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area in which the educational institution is situate for further action. On receipt of such complaint the police officer has to proceed as provided under Sub-section (1) of Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it is a non cognizable offence. It has been so held by this Court in Ahammed Manaf v. Sub Inspector of Police (2010 (4) KLT 837).
3. In the present case, Annexure-A3, complaint was preferred by the second Respondent on 20.12.2006 and the next day ie, on 21.12.2006 the head of the institution has forwarded the complaint to the Sub Inspector, Thrikkakara by Annexure-A2, covering letter. u/s 6 of the Act, head of the institution is to forward a complaint (of the student, parent, guardian or the teacher as the case may be) only after conducting an enquiry in the matter and being prima facie satisfied that allegations in the complaint are true. No such enquiry was conducted by the head of the institution. At any rate, no such report is appended to Annexure-A2, nor even referred to. Annexure-A2 shows that the head of the institution has merely confirmed receipt of the complaint (Annexure-A3) and forwarded the same to the police. That is not in accordance with the mandatory requirement of Section 6 of the Act. Hence registration of the case for offence under the Act is illegal, not to say about submission of final report and cognizance taken thereon.
4. Assuming so, there is nothing wrong in the police registering a case for offences punishable u/s 323, 294(b) and 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the IPC since offence u/s 294(b) is cognizable in character. In such circumstance, proceeding initiated by the police could be sustained for the offences which is cognizable in character as well as non-cognizable offence.
5. In the affidavit of the second Respondent it is stated that he has settled the dispute with Petitioners and does not want to proceed in the matter. The authenticity of the affidavit is confirmed by learned Counsel for additional second Respondent. In the affidavit additional second Respondent has specifically stated that the dispute between additional second Respondent and Petitioners has been amicably settled and that they are staying together as friends. In the circumstance the additional second Respondent does not want to continue the proceeding. I am inclined to accept the composition.
Resultantly, in the light of the composition referred to above and non compliance of Section 6 of the Act as explained in the decision referred (supra), this criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. Final report in Crime No. 542 of 2006 of Thrikkakara Police Station, cognizance taken and further proceeding against Petitioners in C.C. No. 2768 of 2007 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva are quashed.
