Kerala High Court
Kavitha N vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:80932
CRL.MC NO. 6696 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 6696 OF 2021
CRIME NO.980/2020 OF Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.266 OF 2021 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2:
KAVITHA N.,
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. UDAYAKUMAR N, HOUSE NO. 19/1321, EAST MALLATH
PARAMBAR, KASABA AMSOM, CHALAPURAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE
TALUK 673 002.
BY ADV SHRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2 AVATHAR KRISHNAN,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KRISHNA PANTHEERANKAVU,
KOZHIKODE 673 019.
BY ADV SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
OTHER PRESENT:
2025:KER:80932
CRL.MC NO. 6696 OF 2021
2
PP SRI M P PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:80932
CRL.MC NO. 6696 OF 2021
3
ORDER
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in
C.C.No.266/2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First-Class Magistrate -III, Kozhikode, which arises out of
Crime No.980/2020 registered by the Kasaba Police
Station, Kozhikode as against the accused persons for
allegedly committing the offences punishable under
Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The crux of the prosecution case, is that, the de
facto complainant had approached the 1 st accused,
requesting him to arrange a clerical job in Zamorian
School Management, Thali and received Rs.20,50,000/-
from the de facto complainant(2nd respondent). But, he
has failed to secure the employment and refused to return
the money. Thus, the accused have committed the above
2025:KER:80932
CRL.MC NO. 6696 OF 2021
offences.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations
levelled against her. Even if the allegations in Annexure 5
FIR and Annexure 6 final report are taken on its face
value, the same will not constitute the offences charged
against the petitioner. The dispute between the parties is
purely civil in nature. It is only to harass the petitioner
that the present complaint has been filed. Therefore,
Annexures 5 and 6 may be quashed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes
the Crl. M.C. He submits that there are materials to
substantiate the petitioner's culpability in the crime. The
Investigating officer has laid Annexure 6 final report after
being convinced that the accused persons have committed
the above offences. The prosecution has cited 23
2025:KER:80932
CRL.MC NO. 6696 OF 2021
witnesses and also produced materials to prove the
prosecution case. A reading of allegations in Annexures
5 and 6 would clearly reveal that the petitioner has
committed the above offences . Hence the Crl. M.C. may
be quashed.
6. 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.
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
the following words:
2025:KER:80932
CRL.MC NO. 6696 OF 2021
"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 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
2025:KER:80932
CRL.MC NO. 6696 OF 2021
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 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. On a scrutiny of the materials on record, the
rival submissions made across the Bar, and on finding that
the Investigating Officer has filed the final report on
22.03.2021, the case is at the stage of framing of charge
and prima facie there are cogent materials 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 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash
Annexure 5 FIR and Annexure 6 final report and all
further proceedings in C.C. 266/2021.
2025:KER:80932
CRL.MC NO. 6696 OF 2021
In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the Crl.
M.C., but by reserving the right of the petitioner to file
an application for discharge before the Trial Court. If
such application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider
the said application, in accordance with law,
untrammelled by any observation made in this order.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/28/10/2025
2025:KER:80932
CRL.MC NO. 6696 OF 2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED WITHOUT
DOCUMENTS BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED
03.03.2020 IN ST NO. 628/2020 OF HONBLE
SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT (NI ACT CASES), KOZHIKODE.
Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED
16.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT THROUGH SHAHIER SINGH AND
ASSOCIATE ADVOCATE.S
Annexure 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED
29.02.2020 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE SUBAHASH LAL
C.M. CALICUT.
Annexure 4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT CMP
2081/2020 BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOZHIKODE DATED
11.06.2020.
Annexure 5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES
OF FIR 980/2020 DATED 11.06.20 OF
KOZHIKODE CUSBA POLICE STATION, JFCM III
KOZHIKODE.
Annexure 6 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES
OF FINAL RE PORT IN CC 266/2021 DATED
22.03.2021 WITH CHARGE SHEET NO. 172/2021
OF JFCM-III KOZHIKODE.
