Kerala High Court
Febna M N vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:80350
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1384 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
FEBNA M N
AGED 26 YEARS
D/O ASHRAF M N ,MATHERI NALAKATH HOUSE, PURATHUR
THIRUR,MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 676102
BY ADV SRI.AJEESH M UMMER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
CIVIL STATION,MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 676505
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PONNAI POLICE STATION,PONNANI., PIN - 679586
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 676505
5 THE CHAIRMAN,
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM
ROAD,VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,, PIN - 682026
6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
HIGH SECURITY PRISON, VIYYUR,, PIN - 680010
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1384 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:80350
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the wife of Ansar, S/o. Ashraf ('detenu' for the
sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed
against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 22.05.2025 passed by the 2nd
respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAAP Act' for brevity).
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the
District Police Chief, Malappuram, on 09.04.2025 seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the KAAP Act
before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. For the purpose
of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a
'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2p(iii) of the KAAP Act.
3. Altogether, seven cases in which the detenu got involved
were considered by the detaining authority while issuing Ext.P1
detention order. Out of the said seven cases, the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.263/2025 of Ponnai
Police Station registered alleging the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 333, 324(4), 351 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS") and the detenu is arrayed as the 3rd
accused in the said case.
WP(Crl.) No.1384 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:80350
4. We heard Sri.Ajeesh M. Ummer, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.Anas K.A., the learned
Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. According to the learned counsel, the proceedings
against the detenu in the last case i.e. crime No.263/2025 of Ponnani
Police Station is quashed by this Court vide order in
Crl.M.C.No.7940/2025 dated 26.09.2025. The learned counsel further
pointed out that the said quashment of proceedings was made as the
defacto complainant in the above said case filed an affidavit stating
that the name of the detenu was mentioned in the FIS in this case due
to some misunderstanding. According to the counsel, as further
proceedings in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity have already been quashed, the said case cannot be considered
as a qualified case for passing a detention order against the detenu,
and consequently, the detention order is liable to be revoked.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that
if at all, the further proceedings against the detenu in the last case i.e.
crime No.263/2025 of Ponnani Police Station is quashed by this Court
considering the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant, the same is
not a reason to set aside the detention order which is under challenge
WP(Crl.) No.1384 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:80350
in this writ petition. According to the learned Government Pleader,
while passing a detention order, what the jurisdictional authority has to
consider is whether there are materials to show the involvement of the
detenu in criminal activities. The subsequent settlement between the
parties is of little consequence, and the same need not influence the
mind of the jurisdictional authority while entering on the subjective
satisfaction required for passing a detention order.
7. A perusal of the records reveals that it was after
considering the involvement of the detenu in seven cases registered
against the detenu the proceedings under the KAA(P) Act were
initiated against him. Out of the seven cases considered by the
jurisdictional authority, the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is crime No.263/2025 of Ponnai Police Station
registered alleging the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 333, 324(4), 351 r/w 3(5) of BNS.
8. From the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is discernible that his main grievance is that the detenu
was implicated in the said case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity, on a mistaken notion. According to the counsel,
after the registration of the said case, the detenu approached this
Court with Crl.M.C.No.7940/2025 and this Court vide order dated
26.09.2025 quashed the further proceedings against the detenu in
WP(Crl.) No.1384 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:80350
crime No.263/2025 of Ponnani Police Station, which is the case
registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial
activity. A copy of the order in Crl.M.C.No.7940/2025 is also produced
along with this writ petition. A perusal of the said order shows that
further proceedings in the above said case have been quashed by this
Court, and such a quashment order was passed in view of the amicable
settlement between the detenu and the defacto complainant in that
case.
9. While considering the above facts, first of all, it is to be noted
that, as evident from the records, the detenu was arrayed as an
accused on the strength of the FIS given by the defacto complainant.
Therefore, if at all the matter was settled between the defacto
complainant and the detenu, after the registration of the said case, 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 complainants and the accused
often enter into compromises. Hence, the mere fact that such a
settlement was arrived at by itself will not lead to an inference that the
accused has not committed the crime. We say this because this Court is
not oblivious to the fact that the defacto complainants could be
influenced by economic mind, by political clout, by muscle power, and
by threat to life and limb.
WP(Crl.) No.1384 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:80350
10. Moreover, jurisdiction under the KAA(P) Act is a
jurisdiction of suspicion. Through a series of judicial pronouncements,
it is well settled that a court, while dealing with a writ petition
challenging an order of detention, a court is not expected to displace
the satisfaction arrived at by the jurisdictional authority. A perusal of
the impugned order reveals that the same has been passed by the
jurisdictional authority upon arriving at the requisite objective as well
as subjective satisfaction. Therefore, we are of the view that there is
nothing to interfere with Ext.P1 order passed by the jurisdictional
authority after proper application of mind.
Hence, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.1384 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:80350
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1384/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO
DCMPM/2127/2024-S1 DATED 22.05.2025
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
SPONSORING AUTHORITY DATED 09.04.2025
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN
CRIME 263/2025 OF PONNANI POLICE
STATION DATED 27.02.2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(CRL)
1098/2025 DATED 15/09/2025
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY
THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME
263/2025 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION AND
PRODUCED IN CRL MC 7940/2025 DATED
28/06/2025
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN CRL MC
7940/2025 DATED 26/09/2025
