Kerala High Court
Vipin @ Lalu vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 9741 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:82093
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. 9741 OF 2025
CRIME NO.2385/2014 OF Kottiyam Police Station, Kollam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.918 OF 2015 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
VIPIN @ LALU,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. VIJAYAN, POIKAYIL VEEDU, NEAR CHERIKONAM
COLONY, CHERIKONAM CHERRY, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE,
KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691577
BY ADV SRI.R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM)
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 FAYAS R.,
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691589
SR 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. 9741 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:82093
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
CRL.MC NO. 9741 OF 2025
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in
C.C.No.918/2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam, which has arisen
from Crime No.2385/2014 registered by the Kottiyam
Police Station, Kollam, alleging the commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506(ii) of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the
Arms Act, 1959.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on
13.12.2014, at around 17.50 hours, while the defacto
complainant (2nd respondent - who is the Sub
Inspector of Police) along with other Civil Police
Officers, were proceeding in a station jeep, they
received information that a person was brandishing a
CRL.MC NO. 9741 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:82093
dangerous sword in a threatening manner and
causing fear and panic to pedestrians and
shopkeepers. When the police party reached the scene
of occurrence, the petitioner wielded a sword and
swung it towards the defacto complainant and the
other police officers, and then attempted to flee from
the scene of occurrence. The police have subdued the
petitioner and apprehended him at the spot. Thus the
petitioner has committed the above offences.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, even if the allegations in Annexure A2 final
report are taken on its face value, the same will not
constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner.
It is only to wreak vengeance to the petitioner that,
the above crime has been registered. The prosecution
has only cited police officer as witness to prove the
CRL.MC NO. 9741 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:82093
charges against the petitioner. Even after the lapse of
one decade, the trial in the case has not commenced.
In any given case, even if the case is brought to its
logical conclusion, it will not end in a conviction.
Hence, Annexure A2 final report and all further
proceedings pursuant to C.C.No.918/2015 , may be
quashed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
Crl.M.C. She submits that Annexure A2 final report
was filed on 20.12.2014, that is nearly 11 years back.
It is without cogent explanation that the Crl.M.C is
filed, which by itself prove hollowness in the crime. A
reading of Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 final
report establishes the culpability of the petitioner in
the crime. The prosecution has cited six witness and
has produced cogent material to prove the petitioner's
involvement in the crime. There are no valid grounds
to quash the proceedings. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be
CRL.MC NO. 9741 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:82093
dismissed.
6. The petitioner's specific case is that, he has
been falsely implicated in the crime at the instance of
the Investigating Officer and other Civil Police
Officers. The prosecution witnesses are all police
officers and there are no material to prove the
petitioner's involvement in the crime. Even if the
allegation are taken on its face value the same will not
attract the offences charged against the petitioner. On
the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor submits
that there are sufficient materials to prove that the
petitioner had committed the above offences.
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
CRL.MC NO. 9741 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:82093
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 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
CRL.MC NO. 9741 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:82093
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 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. 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
CRL.MC NO. 9741 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:82093
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.
11. On a careful analysis of the materials on
record and the rival submissions made across the Bar,
prima facie I find that there are materials to
substantiate the petitioner's culpability in the crime.
Moreover, there is absolutely no explanation in the
Crl.M.C for the inordinate delay of 11 years in filing
the Crl.M.C. Therefore, I am not convinced that this is
a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court
under Section 528 of the BNSS.
In the above backdrop, I dismiss the Crl.M.C, but
by reserving the right of the petitioner to raise all the
contention and adduce necessary evidence before the
Trial Court, including filing an application for
CRL.MC NO. 9741 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:82093
discharge, if the charge has not been framed till date.
If such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall
consider the application untrammelled by any
observation made in this order. If the application for
discharge is not allowed, the Trial Court shall consider
and dispose of C.C.No.918/2015, in accordance with
law and as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB/30.10.25.
CRL.MC NO. 9741 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:82093
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO. 2385/2014 OF
KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CC. NO. 918/2015 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, KOLLAM
