Kerala High Court
Nizar vs State Of Kerala on 21 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:63936
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025/30TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 931 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NIZAR
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADER MUTHAYIL VEETTIL,
KOONAMTHAIBHAGAM, VATTEKKUNNAM KARA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682024
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.ROHITH
SMT.HARISHMA P.THAMPI
SMT.SAIRA SOURAJ P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL & COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE,
KOCHI CITY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682011
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAA(P)A, ADVISORY BOARD OFFICE,
PADAM ROAD, ELAMAKKARA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN -
682026
WP(Crl.) No.931/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:63936
5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER/INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682033
ADV.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.931/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:63936
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, challenging Ext.P2 order of externment dated 27.05.2025 passed
against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. By
the said order, the petitioner was interdicted from entering the limits of
Kochi City for a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the
order. However, the KAA(P)A Advisory Board vide order dated
07.07.2025 modified the said order by reducing the period of
externment to three months from six months and directed the petitioner
to report before the SHO, Kalamassery Police Station on every Saturday
between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for the remaining period of two months.
2. The records available before us reveal that, it was after
considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal
activities, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kochi City, on 23.04.2025
submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the
petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the
authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General and Commissioner of
Police, Kochi City. For initiation of the said proceedings, the petitioner
was classified as a "known rowdy" as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of
the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
WP(Crl.) No.931/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:63936
3. The authority considered three cases in which the
petitioner got involved while passing the order of externment. Out of the
said cases, the case registered against the petitioner with respect to the
last prejudicial activity is crime No.304/2025 of Kalamassery Police
Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections
115(2), 126(2), 351(3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short
"BNS").
4. Heard Sri. R. Rohit, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, and Sri.K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P2 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without
proper application of mind. According to the counsel, the petitioner has
no involvement in crime No.304/2025 of Kalamassery Police Station,
which is allegedly registered in connection with the last prejudicial
activity attributed to him. He further submits that after the registration
of the said case, the defacto complainant in the said case filed a
monitoring petition before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and in the said
petition, the defacto complainant clearly stated that the Police is
pressurising him to include the petitioner as an accused in the said case
falsely. The learned counsel further submitted that in the said case, the
petitioner, who is arrayed as the 1st accused, has already been
acquitted, as the matter was legally compounded between the defacto
WP(Crl.) No.931/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:63936
complainant and the petitioner. On these premises, the learned counsel
submitted that the case registered against the petitioner with respect to
the last prejudicial activity is not a qualified one to initiate proceedings
under KAA(P) Act against the petitioner.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that
the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after
proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective
as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government
Pleader, in crime No.304/2025, the case registered with respect to the
last prejudicial activity, a final report has been laid before the
jurisdictional Magistrate against the petitioner. According to the
Government Pleader, the petitioner was arrayed as the accused in the
said case as his name was specifically stated in the FIS given by the
defacto complainant. The learned Government Pleader further pointed
out that if at all the accused is acquitted in the said case on the basis of
any compounding petition filed, the same is ot a reason to interfere with
the impugned order.
7. A perusal of the records reveals that it was after
considering the involvement of the petitioner in three cases registered
against him, the proceedings under KAA(P) Act were initiated against
him. Out of the three cases considered by the jurisdictional authority,
the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.304/2025 of Kalamassery Police Station, alleging commission of
WP(Crl.) No.931/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:63936
offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(3) r/w 3(5) of
BNS. The date of occurrence of the said case was on 17.03.2025. The
proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act against the
petitioner was mooted by the detaining authority on 23.04.2025.
Subsequently, it was on 27.05.2025, the externment order was passed.
The sequence of the events narrated above clearly reveals that there is
no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the externment
order.
8. From the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is discernible that his main grievance is that the petitioner
was implicated in crime No.304/2025 of Kalamassery Police Station, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, on mistaken
identity. According to the counsel, after the registration of the said
case, the defacto complainant in the said case filed a monitoring petition
before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, and in the said petition, the defacto
complainant clearly stated that the Police is pressurising him to include
the petitioner as an accused in the said case falsely. While considering
the said contention, first of all, it is to be noted that as evident from the
record, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused on the strength of the
FIS given by the defacto complainant. Moreover, after investigation, a
positive final report has been filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate,
arraying the petitioner as 1st accused in the said case. Therefore, if at
all a monitoring petition as claimed by the counsel for the petitioner was
filed by the defacto complainant, after the registration of the said case,
WP(Crl.) No.931/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:63936
the same is not a reason to enter into a conclusion that the accused is
innocent of the offence alleged against him in the said case. It is a
matter of common knowledge that in several cases after the registration
of the crime, the defacto complainant and the accused often enter into
compromises. Hence, the mere fact that such a petition was filed
cannot, by itself, lead to the inference that the accused has not
committed the crime.
9. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 1st accused, has
already been acquitted, as the matter was legally compounded between
the defacto complainant and the petitioner and therefore, the case
registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is not a qualified one to initiate proceedings under KAA(P) Act
against the petitioner. While considering the said contention, it is to be
noted that no documents whatsoever has been produced from the side
of the petitioner to show that the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 1st
accused in the said case, has already been acquitted by the
Jurisdictional Magistrate pursuant to any compounding petition filed by
the defect complainant and the accused together. Even assuming that
the accused has been acquitted, as contended by the counsel for the
petitioner, the same is also not a ground to treat the said case as an
unqualified one to be considered for passing an order of externment
under KAA(P) Act. Moreover, the Advisory Board had shown maximum
indulgence by modifying the period of externment from six months to
WP(Crl.) No.931/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:63936
three months with a direction to appear before the Station House
Officer, Kalamassery Police Station, for the remaining period of three
months. Therefore, we are of the view that no further leniency is
required to be shown in this matter.
In the result, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner
has not made out any ground for interference. Hence, the writ petition
fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.931/2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:63936
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 931/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
12.05.2025 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTERNMENT ORDER NO.
7(K)/CAMP/25-EC DATED 27.05.2025
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER
SECTION 15 (1)(A) OF KERALA ANTI-
SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MONITORING PETITION
NO. CRL.M.P NO.1152/2025, DATED
02.05.2025 FILED BY THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST-
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KALAMASSERY
Exhibit P4 . A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IIN
OP.126/2025 DATED 07.07.2025 PASSED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
