Kerala High Court

Santhosh,S/O Kunjandi vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

CRL.MC NO. 9621 OF 2025

                                    1

                                                        2025:KER:81579

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

    THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1947

                        CRL.MC NO. 9621 OF 2025

          CRIME NO.308/2021 OF Mala Police Station, Thrissur

        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.50 OF 2022 OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY

PETITIONER/S:

            SANTHOSH,S/O KUNJANDI,
            AGED 44 YEARS
            KOOTTALA HOUSE, ELINJIPRA, MALA, THRISSUR RURAL, PIN -
            680721


            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.K.VARGHESE
            SHRI.JERRY MATHEW
            SHRI.REGHU SREEDHARAN
            SHRI.ATHUL.P
            SMT.DEVIKA K.R.
            SMT.SAWPARNIKA RAJU




RESPONDENT/S:

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

    2       STIGIL JOSE,
            AGED 33 YEARS
            S/O JOSE, THEKKANATH HOUSE,CHENGAMANADU DESOM,
            CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683578



OTHER PRESENT:
 CRL.MC NO. 9621 OF 2025

                                 2

                                                    2025:KER:81579


          SSR PP SMT SEETHA S


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 9621 OF 2025

                                   3

                                                         2025:KER:81579

                              C.S.DIAS, J.
                   ---------------------------------------
                 Crl.M.C. No. 9621 OF 2025
                  -----------------------------------------
            Dated this the 30th day of October, 2025

                               ORDER

The petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.No.50/2022 on

the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Chalakkudy, which arises from Crime No.308/2021 registered

by the Mala Police Station, Thrissur as against the accused

persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable

under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that, on

06.02.2021 the accused 1 and 2 had borrowed the vehicle

bearing registration No.KL 7 CC 333 of the 2 nd respondent

(defacto complainant) for three days for the marriage

purposes of one of their friend's daughter. However, even

after three days, they did not return the vehicle. Subsequently,

they gave the car to accused 3 to 5, who in turn had pledged

the car for Rs.6/- lakh. Thus, the accused have committed the

above offences.

CRL.MC NO. 9621 OF 2025

2025:KER:81579

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that,

a reading of the allegations in Annexure-1 private complaint

and Annexure-3 final report do not attract the offences as

against the petitioner. The dispute between the petitioner and

the 2nd respondent is civil in nature. In fact the petitioner had

only introduced the 2nd accused to the 2nd respondent. It was

he, who, informed the 2nd respondent that the 2nd accused had

sold the vehicle. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can

the offences charged against the petitioner be attracted.

Hence, Annexure-3 final report and all further proceedings as

against the petitioner may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C.

She submits that there are specific overt acts alleged against

the petitioner both in Annexures 2 FIR and 3 final report.

Moreover, Annexure 3 final report was filed on 30.09.2021. It

is after a lapse of four years that the petitioner has

approached this Court. There is no bonafides in the Crl.M.C.

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

CRL.MC NO. 9621 OF 2025

2025:KER:81579

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:

"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 CRL.MC NO. 9621 OF 2025

2025:KER:81579

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 Supreme CRL.MC NO. 9621 OF 2025

2025:KER:81579

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. It is also trite that though no statutory period of

limitation is prescribed under Section 582 of BNSS/482

Cr.P.C., the litigant seeking to quash a proceeding must

approach the 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, the High Court can decline to

exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

10. On an anxious consideration of the allegations in

Annexure-3 final report, I find that there are specific overt

acts alleged against the petitioner. It was the petitioner who CRL.MC NO. 9621 OF 2025

2025:KER:81579

took the 2nd accused to the workshop of the 2 nd respondent and

requested the 2nd respondent to hand-over the vehicle for a

period of three days for the marriage purposes. However, the

accused 1 and 2 did not return the vehicle to the 2 nd

respondent. The prosecution has cited seven witnesses and

produced materials to substantiate the charge against the

petitioner. Though Annexure-3 final report was filed on

30.09.2021, it is only after four years that the petitioner has

filed this Crl.M.C.. There is no whisper in the Crl.M.C.

explaining the reason for the delay in belatedly filing the

Crl.M.C.

11. On an appreciation of the materials on record, I am

not convinced that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent

powers of this Court to quash Annexure 3 final report and all

further proceedings pursuant to it. I am prima facie satisfied

that the allegations in Annexure 3 final report, if taken on its

face value, will constitute the offences charged against the

petitioner.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the Crl.M.C.,

but by reserving the right of the petitioner to raise all the CRL.MC NO. 9621 OF 2025

2025:KER:81579

contentions before the Trial Court, including filing an

application for discharge, if the charge has not been framed

till date. If such application is filed, the Trial Court shall

consider the said application, on its merits, untrammelled by

any observations in this order.

sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rkc/30.10.25 CRL.MC NO. 9621 OF 2025

2025:KER:81579

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT DATED 27-04-2021 FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.