Sobha Annie Binu vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 10018 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sobha Annie Binu vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                2025:KER:79627
CRL.MC NO. 9130 OF 2025

                                 1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

  FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947

                      CRL.MC NO. 9130 OF 2025

CRIME NO.950/2018 OF Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta

        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.994 OF 2019

OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PATHANAMTHITTA

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

           SOBHA ANNIE BINU,
           AGED 44 YEARS
           W/O BINU ZAKARIAH,CHAMAKALAYIL KRIPA VILLA
           VENNIKULAM P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -
           689544


           BY ADVS.
           SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE
           SHRI.ALAN LALU JOHN




RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

    2      THOMAS @ KUNJUKUNJU,
           AGED 86 YEARS
           S/O ABRAHAM, KANJIRATHUMMOOTTIL HOUSE,
           VALANKARA,VENNIKULAM P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
           PIN - 689544
                                                2025:KER:79627
CRL.MC NO. 9130 OF 2025

                              2




OTHER PRESENT:

          SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                              2025:KER:79627
CRL.MC NO. 9130 OF 2025

                             3


                        C.S.DIAS, J.
            ---------------------------------------
            Crl.M.C. No. 9130 OF 2025
           -----------------------------------------
       Dated this the 24th day of October, 2025

                          ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.994 of

2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of

First Class-II, Pathanamthitta, which arises out of Crime

No.950 of 2018 registered by the Koipuram Police

Station, Pathanamthitta, as against the accused for

allegedly committing the offences punishable under

Sections 294(b) and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case, in essence, is that, on

17.09.2018 at around 9.00 hours, the petitioner had

abused the defacto complainant (2nd respondent) in vulgar

language and beat him with a broom stick and caused

hurt to him because the 2nd respondent had thrown a bulb

at petitioner's house.

2025:KER:79627 CRL.MC NO. 9130 OF 2025

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that, even if the allegations in Annexure B final report are

taken on its face value, the same will not attract the

offences charged against the petitioner. In fact there are

civil suits pending between the petitioner and brother of

the 2nd respondent. It is out of the said animosity that the

frivolous complaint was filed. Even if the trial in the case

is taken, there is no likelihood of the petitioner being

convicted. There is no material to substantiate the

petitioner's culpability in the crime. Therefore, Annexure

B final report may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the

Crl.M.C. She submits that there are cogent materials and

witnesses to prove the petitioner's culpability in the

crime. The fact that Annexure B final report was filed on 2025:KER:79627 CRL.MC NO. 9130 OF 2025

10.06.2019 and that the petitioner has approached this

Court after six years, proves the falsity and hollowness in

the Crl.M.C. The petitioner's sole intention is to protract

the trial. Therefore,the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

6. The principles governing the exercise of the

inherent power of 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, is well-settled in a host of judicial

precedents.

7. 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 2025:KER:79627 CRL.MC NO. 9130 OF 2025

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] , 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 2025:KER:79627 CRL.MC NO. 9130 OF 2025

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"

8. Likewise, in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others [(2021) 9 SCC 35], the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has 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 2025:KER:79627 CRL.MC NO. 9130 OF 2025

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.

9. It is equally well-settled that, though no statutory

period of limitation is prescribed under Section 582 of

BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.), a litigant seeking to quash a

proceeding has to approach this Court within a

reasonable time period; if not, he must convincingly

address the reasons for the delay. At any rate, the litigant

cannot approach this Court at his whim and caprice,

merely because no period of limitation is prescribed in

the statute. In such cases, this Court can decline to

exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

10. In the instant case, the prosecution alleges

that the petitioner used vituperative language and had

caused hurt to the 2nd respondent by assaulting him with

a stick. On the contrary, the petitioner contends that 2025:KER:79627 CRL.MC NO. 9130 OF 2025

there is no material to prove his culpability in the crime.

The complaint has been filed as a counter-blast to the

civil suit filed by the petitioner against the brother of the

2nd respondent.

11. On an anxious consideration of the facts and the

materials on record, particularly the fact that Annexure B

final report was filed on 10.06.2019, and this Crl.M.C. is

filed after six years after the filing of the final report and

that too without any explanation, and further that the

prosecution has cited witnesses and has produced

materials to establish the petitioner's culpability in the

crime, I am of the firm view that this is not a fit case to

exercise the inherent powers of this Court to quash

Annexure B final report and all further proceedings

pursuant to it. Accordingly, 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 of an 2025:KER:79627 CRL.MC NO. 9130 OF 2025

application for discharge, if the charge has not been

framed till date. If such an application is filed, the Trial

Court shall consider the application in accordance with

law.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE dkr 2025:KER:79627 CRL.MC NO. 9130 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE REFER CHARGE SHEET FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II PATHANAMTHITTA Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO: 994/ 2019 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II PATHANAMTHITTA ALONG WITH FIR Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO: 97 OF 2017 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT THIRUVALLA Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO: 343/2017 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT THIRUVALLA Annexure E A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05.08.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHENCHERRY Annexure F A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.06.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT WOMEN CELL Annexure G A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF TO THE CHAIRPERSON OF WOMENS COMMISSION Annexure H A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 10.06.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF PATHANAMTHITTA AND THE RECEIPT