Kerala High Court
Alexander Balas vs Station House Officer ,Attingal on 3 November, 2025
Author: C.S Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:82844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5820 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1052/2024 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC
NO.804 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,
ATTINGAL.
PETITIONER:
ALEXANDER BALAS,
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O BALAS, SNEHALAYAM, PONNEDUTHAKUZHI,
URIYECODE, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, KATTAKADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 543.
BY ADV SMT.M.P.SUNITHA BEEGUM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ,ATTINGAL,
ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 101.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
3 MUMTAZ,
AGED 50 YEARS,
D/O K K KABEER, NOOR MAHAL, NEAR SUN AUDITORIUM
MOONNU MUKKU , ATTINGAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 101.
Crl.M.C No.5820 of 2025
2025:KER:82844
-2-
SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.5820 of 2025
2025:KER:82844
-3-
C.S DIAS., J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.5820 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.804/2024 on the file
of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal, which
arises out of Crime No.1052/2024 registered by the Attingal Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram, allegedly committing the offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioner,
who is running a loan consultancy business, with an intention to
cheat the de facto complainant (3rd respondent), promised to clear
the chitti transactions with Kerala State Financial Enterprises at
Attingal Branch and deceived Rs.8,81,000/- from the 3 rd respondent.
However, the petitioner did not clear the chitti arrears and refused
to return the said amount. Thus, the accused have committed the
above offences.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:82844
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
even if the allegations in Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final
report are taken on face value, the same will not constitute the
offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. There is no
material to substantiate that the de facto complainant, that is the
3rd respondent, did entrust any amount to the petitioner and the
petitioner promised to clear the arrears with the KSFE. It is only to
wreak vengeance and arrest the petitioner, that the 3 rd respondent
has got Annexure-A1 FIR registered. Therefore, the entire
proceedings may be quashed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this Crl.M.C and
submits that the petitioner is a history sheeter, he is involved in
three other crimes of the similar nature, registered as Crime No.509
of 2023 by the Palakkad Town Police Station, Crime No.1323 of
2022 registered by the Medical College Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram and Crime No.247 of 2025 registered by the
Vilappilsala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for allegedly
committing similar offences. A reading Annexure-A1 FIR and
Annexure-A2 Final Report clearly reveals the petitioner's culpability
for the crime. Therefore, this Court cannot exercise the
inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
2025:KER:82844
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
6. The prosecution allegations is that the petitioner had
received Rs.8,81,000/- from the 3rd respondent on the assurance of
clearing the 3rd respondent's liabilities with the KSFE. However, the
petitioner failed to clear the liability and refused to return the
money.
7. There is a host of precedential authority on the contours
of the inherent power to be exercised by this Court under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short,
'BNSS'), corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
8. In India Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and
Others [(2006) 6 SCC 736], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after
exhaustively considering the earlier precedents on Section 482
Cr.P.C., has comprehensively enunciated the principles to be
followed by the High Courts while exercising its inherent powers in
an application to quash a criminal complaint /proceeding, in the
following words:
"12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal
proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions.
To mention a few--Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao
Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 (Cri) 234] , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335] Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194] ,
2025:KER:82844
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC
591] , State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164], Rajesh Bajaj v.
State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259] , Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v.
Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269] , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of
Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 ] , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645] and
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122] .
The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged
against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but
without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a
meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or
genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining
prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of
the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been
initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or
where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or
scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with
abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal
ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in
the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated
in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is
warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are
absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or
(b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A
commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause
of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As
the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal
proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction
or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is
not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not".
9. Likewise, in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others [(2021) 9 SCC 35], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
2025:KER:82844
emphatically held that, once the investigation is complete and the
charge sheet is filed, the High Court should refrain from analysing
the merits of the allegations as if exercising the appellate
jurisdiction or conducting the trial. The inherent power to quash a
criminal proceeding is an exception and not a rule. Although the
power is quite broad and wide, it is to be exercised sparingly and
with caution.
10. On an overall consideration of the materials record
and the rival submissions made across the Bar, and on finding that
the allegations in Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report, if
taken on face value, do constitute the offences under Sections 406
and 420 of the IPC and further that the petitioner is a person with
criminal antecedents, who has committed similar offences for which
the cases are pending before various police stations, I am not
convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise inherent
powers of this Court under Section 528 and quash Annexure B final
report and all further proceedings pursuant to it.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the Crl. M.C., but
by reserving the right of the petitioner to raise all his contentions
before the Trial Court, including filing an application of discharge, if
the charges have not been framed till date. If such application is
2025:KER:82844
filed, the Trial Court should consider the application, in accordance
with law, untrammelled by any observations made in this order.
Sd/-
C.S DIAS
JUDGE
ADS
2025:KER:82844
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR WITH FIS IN
CRIME NO.1052/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER BY ATTINGAL POLICE STATION
DATED 11/08/2024.
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
12-09-2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, ATTINGAL.
Annexure A3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR DATED 26-04-2023
IN CRIME NO 527/2023 REGISTERED BY TOWN
SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.
Annexure A4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT
20.04.2023 OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM
DISTRICT HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD.
