[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Nagendran V.V vs State Of Kerala on 1 December, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 9745 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:92689
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. 9745 OF 2025
CRIME NO.905/2024 OF Kozhinjampara Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.53 OF 2025 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHITTUR
PETITIONER/S:
1 NAGENDRAN V.V.,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. VISWAMBHARAN, VALOOPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALIYAKONAM,
MADAYIKONAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680712
2 N.K. SAJEESHKUMAR,
S/O. KUMARAN, NOCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAPRANAM VILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680712
3 SUNIL M.R
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN M.A, MANAKKATHODAN HOUSE, MONODY, NEAR
PAPPU NAIR PALAM, VELLIKULANGARA P.O, CHOKKANA,
THRISSUR., PIN - 680699
4 KANNAN M.V.,
S/O. VASU, MULANGATH HOUSE, PANANGAD DESOM, S.N.PURAM,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680665
BY ADVS.
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.)
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA,
CRL.MC NO. 9745 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:92689
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.ADV.SRI.C.C.THOMAS
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:
CRL.MC NO. 9745 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:92689
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 9745 OF 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2025
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused 9 to 12 in CP
No.53/2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of
First Class-I, Chittur (Trial Court), which originates from Crime
No.905/2024 registered by the Kozhinjampara Police Station,
Palakkad against thirteen accused persons for allegedly
committing the offences punishable under Section 55(a) of the
Kerala Abkari Act and Sections 341(2) and 238 read with
Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on 28.10.2024
at around 2.15 hours, 1260 liters of spirit stored in 36 cans,
were seized from the house of the 1st accused. Based on his
confession statement, the accused 2 to 8 have been arraigned
as accused in the crime. After that, on the basis of the
confession statement of the 2nd accused, the toddy shop
licensees of four groups in Thrissur Excise Range have been
arraigned as accused 9 to 12 in the above crime. Thus, the
CRL.MC NO. 9745 OF 2025
2025:KER:92689
accused have committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri.C.C.Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned
Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
vehemently submits that, even if the allegations in Annexure-1
FIR and Annexure-2 final report are taken on their face value,
the same will not constitute the offences charged against the
petitioners. The petitioners are toddy shop licensees within
Thrissur Excise Range. They have been implicated as accused in
the crime solely on the alleged confession statement made by
the co-accused. He relies on the decision of this Court in Lizy
Kurian v. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLJ 877) to canvass the
position that the confession of a co-accused is not a substantive
evidence as against the other accused and the same cannot be
used as a material to implicate a person as an accused in the
crime. Such confession statements are inadmissible in evidence
is also settled in Joseph v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KHC 537).
The learned Senior Counsel also contends that, though 53
charge witnesses have been cited by the prosecution, none of
CRL.MC NO. 9745 OF 2025
2025:KER:92689
them have been cited to prove any incriminating materials
against the petitioners. All the said witnesses are only to prove
the licenses, the transport permits and documents pertaining to
the licenses of the respective accused 9 to 12. Admittedly, no
spirit was seized from the premises of the petitioners or does
the prosecution have a case that spirit was found in the toddy
being sold by the petitioners in their respective toddy shops.
There is no material to substantiate the petitioners' culpability
in the crime. Therefore, even if the petitioners are to withstand
the trial, the same will not lead to a conviction. The entire
prosecution proceedings, as against the petitioners, is a sheer
abuse of process of law. The petitioners are the licensees of the
toddy shops from 2007 onwards. The registration of the crime
has prevented them from participating in the current auction. It
was considering the above aspects, by order dated 26.03.2025
in B.A.No.3462/2025, this Court has granted the petitioners an
order of pre-arrest bail. The respondent is proceeding with the
auction of the shop rooms as the petitioners are disqualified. By
the interim order dated 06.11.2025 in WP© No.41044/2025,
this Court has ordered that declaration shall not be made in
CRL.MC NO. 9745 OF 2025
2025:KER:92689
respect of the resale of the shops since third party rights would
be created. All these circumstances substantiate that the entire
proceedings is sheer abuse of process of the law and are liable
to be quashed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Criminal
Miscellaneous Case. He submits that the question whether the
petitioners have any culpability in the crime is a matter that has
to be decided by the Trial Court. This Court may not embark
upon a mini-trial and render a finding regarding the petitioners'
involvement in the crime. The prosecution has cited 53 charge
witnesses, whose oral testimonies and the materials proposed to
be produced by the prosecution are relevant for deciding the
case. Hence, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case may be
dismissed.
6. The prosecution was initiated against the 1 st accused
for having been found in conscious possession of 1260 liters of
spirit, which was seized from his house.
7. The prosecution case is that, the 1st accused, while in
custody, confessed that he had sold the contraband to accused
2 to 8, and then the 2nd accused later confessed that he sold the
CRL.MC NO. 9745 OF 2025
2025:KER:92689
contraband to the petitioners. It is solely on the basis of the said
confession that the petitioners have been arraigned as accused
9 to 12 in the above crime.
8. In Lizy Kurian's case (supra), this Court has succinctly
held that confession of a co-accused is not a substantive
evidence and cannot be used to implicate other persons as
accused in a crime. Similarly in Joseph's case (supra), this Court
has held that the statement given by a co-accused can only be
used for the purpose of investigation and not as a substantive
evidence.
9. On a threadbare analysis of Annexure-1 FIR and
Annexure-2 final report, I do not find any specific overt act
attributed against the petitioners or incriminating materials to
prima facie find the petitioners' culpability in the crime. The
prosecution also does not have a case that any contraband was
mixed in the toddy by the petitioners or any contraband was
seized from their premises. Therefore, the only scrap of
material that is available on record is the confession statement
of the co-accused which cannot be looked for any purpose.
Thus, I am convinced and satisfied, even if the petitioners
CRL.MC NO. 9745 OF 2025
2025:KER:92689
withstand the ordeal of trial, that it is not going to lead to any
conviction.
10. It is trite that this Court has broad plenary powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which
corresponds to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, to quash criminal proceedings. Though such
inherent power is expansive in nature, it 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 SCC 781]).
CRL.MC NO. 9745 OF 2025
2025:KER:92689
11. On an overall consideration of the facts and
materials on record, and the law on the point, and on finding
that there are materials to substantiate the petitioners'
culpability in the crime, other than for the alleged confession
statement of the co-accused, I am satisfied that, even if the
allegations in Annexure-1 FIR and Annexure-2 final report are
taken on their face value the same would not attract the
offences alleged against the petitioners, attracting the
principles laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra). Therefore, I
am convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to invoke the
inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and quash all further
proceedings in CP No.53/2025 of the Trial Court as against the
petitioners.
Accordingly, I allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, by
quashing Annexure-1 FIR, Annexure-2 final report and all
further proceedings in CP No.53/2025 of the Trial Court, as
against the petitioners. sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/01.12.25
CRL.MC NO. 9745 OF 2025
2025:KER:92689
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 9745 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.905/2024 OF KOZHINJAMPARA
POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT DATED
28.10.2024
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE WITH STATEMENT
OF THE WITNESSES, MAHAZAR, CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
ETC IN IN CRIME NO.905/2024 OF KOZHINJAMPARA
POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
Annexure 3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
06.11.2025 IN WP(C) NO.41044/2025
