Arun V vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 11644 Ker

Kerala High Court

Arun V vs State Of Kerala on 1 December, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                    2025:KER:92476
CRL.MC NO. 10106 OF 2025

                                   1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

 MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947

                    CRL.MC NO. 10106 OF 2025

CRIME NO.510/2024 OF Kozhikode Town Police Station, Kozhikode

        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1058 OF 2024

OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOZHIKODE

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

            ARUN V,
            AGED 38 YEARS
            S/O. RAVINDRAN V,RESIDING AT AANAKAMCHERI
            HOUSE,CHEVAAYOOR P.O,KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673017


            BY ADVS.
            SRI. BRIJESH N.B.
            SHRI.K.N.RANJITH
            SHRI.BALAKRISHNAN N.
            SMT.AKHILA S.
            SMT.SREEKUTTY S.B.
            SMT.ANJANA K.A.




RESPONDENTS:

    1       STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
            KERALA,ERNAKULAM, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 682031

    2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
            KOZHIKODE TOWN POLICE STATION, PIN - 673004
                                                 2025:KER:92476
CRL.MC NO. 10106 OF 2025

                                  2



    3     FASIL M,
          AGED 32 YEARS
          S/O. BEERAN,RESIDING AT FIROZ MANZIL,KOLATHARA
          POST,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,KERALA, INDIA.,
          PIN - 673655

          PP. SRI. M.P.PRASANTH



     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                2025:KER:92476
CRL.MC NO. 10106 OF 2025

                              3




                           ORDER

Dated this the 1st day of December, 2025

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1058/2024

on the file of the Court of the Judicial First-Class

Magistrate, Kozhikode (Trial Court), which originates

from Crime No.510/2024 registered by the Kozhikode

Town Police Station, alleging the commission of the

offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2) and

117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that,

on 13.07.2024, at 5.15 hours, the petitioner had physically

manhandled the de facto complainant (3rd respondent)

and caused grievous hurt to him. Thus, the petitioner has

committed above offences.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the 2025:KER:92476 CRL.MC NO. 10106 OF 2025

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that even if the allegations in the FIR and the final report

are taken on their face value, the same will not constitute

the offences charged against the petitioner. In fact, the

only allegation against the petitioner is that, he had

wrongfully restrained the 3rd respondent and twisted his

left hand which resulted in a fracture of his wrist bone.

There was no dangerous weapon used in the said incident.

There are also no medical records to substantiate that the

3rd respondent suffered a fracture. Hence, the entire

proceedings leading to the registration of Annexure 3 FIR

and the filing of Annexure 4 final report are vitiated.

Hence, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously

opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that there are specific

overt acts attributed against the petitioner, which proves 2025:KER:92476 CRL.MC NO. 10106 OF 2025

his culpability in the crime. The prosecution has cited

witness No.6, the doctor, who treated the 3 rd respondent.

There are medical records available to prove that the 3 rd

respondent has suffered a fracture. These matters are to

be considered by the Trial Court. This Court may not

embark upon minitrial to come to a conclusion that the

petitioner has not committed the above offences. Hence,

the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

6. The specific allegation of the prosecution is

that the petitioner had wrongfully restrained the de facto

complainant and twisted his hand which caused a

fracture to the 3rd respondent.

7. A reading of Annexure 3 FIR and Annexure 4

final report, substantiate that there are specific overt acts

attributed against the petitioner.

8. It is well-established that this Court has broad

plenary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 2025:KER:92476 CRL.MC NO. 10106 OF 2025

Procedure, which corresponds to Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash

criminal proceedings. However, such inherent power,

though expansive in nature, is not unbridled or unlimited.

They are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection,

and within the parameters delineated by judicial

precedents. One of the elementary principles to quash a

criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in the first

information report or the complaint are taken at their face

value and accepted in their entirety, the same will not

prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case

against the accused. (Read the decisions in State of

Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp

(1) SCC 335], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan

Singh and Others [(2023) 18 SCC 399], Daxaben v. State

of Gujarat and Others [(2022) 16 SCC 117] and Monica

Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [(2008) 8 2025:KER:92476 CRL.MC NO. 10106 OF 2025

SCC 781]).

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also consistently

cautioned that High Courts, while exercising jurisdiction

under Section 482 of the Code, should not embark upon a

"minitrial" or weigh the sufficiency of evidence, which

falls within the domain of the Trial Court. The scope of

enquiry is confined to whether, on a plain reading of the

FIR/complaint and accompanying material, the

ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. (Read the

decisions in Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madal Lal Kapoor

[(2013) 3 SCC 330] and HMT Watches Ltd. v. Abida M.A.

and another [(2015) 11 SCC 776]).

10. In Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) [2025 KHC

6914], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the

inherent power under Section 482 of the Code is

extraordinary, but must be exercised sparingly. It is the

duty of the High Court to intervene where continuation of 2025:KER:92476 CRL.MC NO. 10106 OF 2025

criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of

process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil

nature and criminal colour has been artificially given to it.

Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise

requiring adjudication, the matter must ordinarily

proceed to trial.

11.After bestowing my anxious consideration to the

facts and materials on record, particularly going through

the allegations in Annexures 3 and 4, wherein there are

specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner and

furthermore the prosecution has cited witnesses to

substantiate the petitioner's culpability in the crime, I am

not satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent

powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the

proceedings.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the Crl.

2025:KER:92476 CRL.MC NO. 10106 OF 2025

M.C., but by reserving the right of the petitioner to raise

all his contentions before the Trial Court, including filing

an application for discharge at the appropriate stage, if

the charge has not been framed till date. If such

application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider the

application, in accordance with law, untrammelled by any

observation made in this order.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm/1/12/2025 2025:KER:92476 CRL.MC NO. 10106 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10106 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE PETITIONER Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER Annexure 3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.0510/2024 OF THE KOZHIKODE TOWN POLICE STATION DATED 13-07-2024 Annexure 4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT C.C NO. 1058/2024 DATED 07.09.2024 Annexure A5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS ISSUED BY JFCM-1 COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 29.11.2025