DILEEP, HAKHIM and ABDUL SATHAR v. STATE OF KERALA and ANEESH KUMAR

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-08-05
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 353 of 2013, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri, stand quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dileep
Hakhim
Abdul Sathar

Respondents

State of Kerala
Aneesh Kumar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Mansoor B.H.

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri. Ajmad Ali
• Sri. C.M. Kammappu

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition under section 482 CrPC seeks quashing of proceedings in S.C. No. 353 of 2013, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri, in which the petitioners—Dileep, Hakhim, and Abdul Sathar—are accused of offences including sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 read with 149, 323, and 307 IPC. The alleged incident occurred on 16 January 2012 at about 9:30 p.m., described as an unlawful assembly that attacked the de facto complainant/victim. The 2nd respondent, Aneesh Kumar, has filed an affidavit stating no objection to terminating the proceedings, and the State’s Public Prosecutor notes there are no other heinous cases against the petitioners. The respondent’s affidavit and submissions indicate a desire to settle the dispute amicably. The court considers that the offence is personal and not likely to affect public peace, and that quashing would prevent oppression and further prejudice while serving the interest of peace and harmony. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and related judgments, the court holds that the inherent powers under CrPC section 482 can be invoked for quashing where out-of-court settlements exist. The petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners are quashed, delivering peace between the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 read with 149, 323, 307 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of CrPC 482 to quash proceedings on basis of compromise (de hors section 320)
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab as guiding precedent

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition contends that Section 482 CrPC should be invoked to quash the proceedings in light of an amicable out-of-court settlement. The offences are argued to be personal in nature with no public interest at stake; the victim has filed an affidavit expressing no objection to quashing; continued prosecution would serve little purpose as conviction is unlikely and would cause oppression or prejudice. The petition relies on Gian Singh and related rulings to justify quashing in such circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, notes no other heinous cases against the petitioners and presents the possibility that settlement is in the interest of peace, supported by the victim’s affidavit; no explicit opposition to quashing is apparent in the record, and the court is urged to consider the broader interests of justice and public peace.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Positive	Cited as the leading precedent for invoking CrPC 482 in compromise scenarios and quashing criminal proceedings.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.	2014 (6) SCC 466	Mentioned Only	Referenced as part of the broader framework of cases, but not explicitly applied to the court’s reasoning for quashing in this matter.
Yogendra Yadav and others v State of Jharkhand	2014 (9) SCC 653	Mentioned Only	Cited within the spectrum of related precedents but not the primary basis for the decision.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 4589 of 2016 () --------------------------SC 353/2013 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI** **----------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** ## **1. DILEEP** **AGED:33 YEARS, S/O SUBRAMONIAN, KOTTEKKADU HOUSE, CHERAKKAPORAMBU PO, MYLONGARA, ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA** ## **2. HAKHIM** **AGED:32 YEARS, S/O ABDULLAH, CHORNAYIL HOUSE, VENGAD, PERINTHALMANNA** ## **3. ABDUL SATHAR** **AGED:26 YEARS, S/O AVARANKUTTY, KIZHAKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, ANGADIPURAM, PUTHANANGADI, PALLIPADY PERINTHALMANA** **BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO & INJURED: --------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT** ## **2. ANEESH KUMAR** **AGED:42 YEARS, S/O KUMARAN, UTHRAM HOUSE, ERAMTHODE, VALAMBOOR, PERINTHALMANNA-679322** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **Crl.MC.No. 4589 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** **ANNEXUR:A1: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 49/12 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION ANNEXUR:A2: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **bp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.4589 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of August, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.353 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. They are charged for having committed offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 read with 149, 323, 307 of the IPC. The 2[ndt] respondent is the victim. - 2.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466)** and **Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand** Crl.M.C.4589/2016 2 (2014 (9) SCC 653 ) with a prayer to quash the above proceeding. - 3.The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked _de hors_ section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings. - 4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit wherein he asserts that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings. - 5.The gist of the allegation is that the petitioners had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on - 16.1.2012 at 9.30 p.m. and attacked the de facto Crl.M.C.4589/2016 3 complainant with weapons. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that no other cases of heinous nature are reported against the petitioners. - 7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. - 8.The victim has sworn to an affidavit in which he asserts that he has no objection in allowing the petition and in quashing the proceedings as all the disputes between the parties have been resolved and the parties are living in peace and harmony. 9. It appears to me that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in Crl.M.C.4589/2016 4 putting the _de facto_ complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. - 10.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Gian Singh ( Supra ) and the other cases referred to above. - In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.353 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri, shall stand quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps Crl.M.C.4589/2016 5 Crl.M.C.4589/2016 6