Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Shiju, Sreejith, Muhammed Illiyas, Sreerag, Shamsudeen and Saifudheen v State of Kerala and Manikandan

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.4312 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date
2016-08-03
Court Decision / Holding
This petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime No. 234/2016, Melattur Police Station, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shiju
  • Sreejith
  • Muhammed Illiyas
  • Sreerag
  • Shamsudeen
  • Saifudheen

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Manikandan, aged 30, S/o Raman

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Sri. Suraj S.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • R1: Public Prosecutor SMT. Pushpalatha M.K.
  • • R2: Adv. Sri. Nirmal V. Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment, rendered on 3 August 2016, concerns Crl.M.C. No.4312 of 2016 filed by six accused in Melattur Police Station Crime No. 234/2016. The petition seeks to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings in light of out-of-court settlements and the Supreme Court’s guidance in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, followed by Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Yogendra Yadav and others v. State of Jharkhand. The accused contend that the dispute between them and the 2nd respondent has been amicably resolved, with the latter filing an affidavit asserting no objection to terminating the proceedings. The offences alleged include Sections 143, 147, 323, 506 and 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, making the matter potentially non-compoundable in normal circumstances. The Public Prosecutor submits that there are no other heinous cases against the petitioners. The learned Judge notes that the alleged act was personal in nature and did not threaten public peace, and that quashing would advance peace and avoid oppression or prejudice to the parties. Relying on Gian Singh and related guidelines, the Court holds that the proceedings can be quashed in the interests of justice and public harmony, and grants the petition, quashing all further proceedings against accused Nos. 1–6.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sections 143, 147, 323, 506 and 149 IPCSection 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Section 482 CrPCSection 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent powers of CrPC 482 to quash proceedings on grounds of settlement or lack of public interest de hors Section 320 CrPC
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab doctrine/guidelines permitting quashing in cases of compromise/out-of-court settlement
  • Out-of-court settlement can lead to quashing of proceedings where continuing would serve no purpose and would cause oppression

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that Gian Singh and subsequent cases authorize invoking the inherent powers of Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings where parties have reached an amicable out-of-court settlement and there exists no ongoing public interest or acrimony. The affidavit by the victim endorses termination of proceedings, and the offences, though listed under various IPC sections and the SC/ST Act, are primarily personal in nature, not affecting public peace.

Contentions of Respondents

The State’s counsel notes the lack of any additional heinous charges against the petitioners and points to the need to rely on established guidelines from Gian Singh and related judgments. The Respondents emphasize maintaining judicial process unless quashing serves the interests of justice and does not undermine public order.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108PositiveCited as the primary authority for using the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in light of an amicable out-of-court settlement.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466Mentioned OnlyCited among the supporting cases in the suite of guidelines but not expressly applied or elaborated in the order.
Yogendra Yadav and others v State of Jharkhand2014 (9) SCC 653Mentioned OnlyCited as part of the guideline matrix but without detailed application in the order.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Shiju, Sreejith, Muhammed Illiyas, Sreerag, Shamsudeen and Saifudheen v State of Kerala and Manikandan and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/12TH SRAVANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 4312 of 2016** ## **-----------------------** **CRIME NO. 234/2016 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM ....** **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** ## **1. SHIJU,** **AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. KUNJIREVI, RESIDING AT THAMARATH HOUSE, THELEKKAD P.O., VETTATHUR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 679 325.** ## **2. SREEJITH,** - **AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. UNNIKUNJU, PULIKKAL HOUSE, THELAKKAD P.O., VETTATHUR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM-679 325.** ## **3. MUHAMMED ILLIYAS,** - **AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL HAMEED, THAMRATH HOUSE, THELAKKAD P.O., VETTATHUR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM-679 325.** ## **4. SREERAG,** **AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKUNJU, PULIKKAL HOUSE, THELAKKAD P.O., VETTATHUR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM- 679 325.** ## **5. SHAMSUDEEN,** **AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, THAMARATH HOUSE, THELAKKAD P.O., VETTATHUR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM- 679 325.** ## **6. SAIFUDHEEN,** **AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, THAMARATH, THELAKKAD P.O., VETTATHUR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM- 679 325.** **BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ S.** **msv/** **-2-** **-2-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4312 of 2016** ## **-----------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 011.** ## **2. MANIKANDAN,** **AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN, RESIDING AT THIRUTHIYIL HOUSE, THIRUTHIYIL COLONY, THELAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 101.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. R2 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** **Crl.MC.No. 4312 of 2016** **-----------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.234/2016 OF THE MELATTOOR POLICE STAITON.** **ANNEXURE B: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE:** **------------------------** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **Crl.M.C. No.4312 of 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of August, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** 1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime No.234 of 2016 of the Melattur Police Station. They are proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 506 and 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The 2[nd] 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 another (2014) 6 SCC 466)** and Crl.M.C. No.4312 of 2016 **-2-** **Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand** [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 2[nd] respondent has sworn to an affidavit wherein he asserts that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings. Crl.M.C. No.4312 of 2016 **-3-** - 5.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 26.05.2016 at about 8.30 p.m., the petitioners along with other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and voluntarily caused hurt to the 2[nd] respondent. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that no other cases of heinous nature are reported against the petitioners. - 7.I have bestowed 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 wherein it is asserted 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 Crl.M.C. No.4312 of 2016 **-4-** 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 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 Crl.M.C. No.4312 of 2016 **-5-** Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime No.234 of 2016 of the Melattur Police Station, are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/5/8/16