Kerala High Court
Rajesh P vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:77340
CRL.MC NO. 9245 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 25TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9245 OF 2025
CRIME NO.397/2015 OF Thiruvallam Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1835 OF 2019
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAJESH P
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O PRABHAKARAN NAIR, PRABHAKARA NILAYAM, T.C
65/183(1), MENILAM, THIRUVALLOM P.O,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695027
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.A.ZOHRA
SHRI.AKBAR ZAHEER A.N.
RESPONDENTS/STATE ADN COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION, TIRUVALLAM,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695027
2025:KER:77340
CRL.MC NO. 9245 OF 2025
2
3 VIVEK
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O SUNDARESAN, ARADHANA, MNRA-40, MUTTATHARA,
THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695027
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.P. PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:77340
CRL.MC NO. 9245 OF 2025
3
ORDER
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the accused in
C.C.No.1835/2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First-Class Magistrate - II, Neyyattinkara, which
originates from Crime No.397/2015 of the Thiruvallam
Police Station, for allegedly committing the offences
punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 447 and 506
(i) of the Indian Penal Code. Although in Annexure I
FIR the offences under Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala
Money Lenders Act, 1958, were included, in Annexure
III final report, the said offences were deleted.
2. The gravamen of the prosecution's case is
that, on 28.02.2015, at about 14.30 hours, the
petitioner caught hold of defacto complainant's shirt,
abused him in vulgar language, slapped him on his
cheek, beat him on his left eyebrow, kicked him on his
2025:KER:77340
CRL.MC NO. 9245 OF 2025
right shoulder and back and directed him to return the
borrowed money.
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 case of the prosecution is misconceived and
untenable. She submits that the defacto complainant
was a close friend of the petitioner. On learning that
the petitioner was sanctioned a housing loan, the
defacto complainant borrowed Rs. 20/- lakh from the
petitioner and issued post-dated cheques. As the
cheques got dishonoured, the petitioner initiated
prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The defacto complainant was convicted
and sentenced by the Trial, Appellate and this Court, as
evidenced by Annexure IV order. The present false
complaint is a counterblast to the prosecution. There are
2025:KER:77340
CRL.MC NO. 9245 OF 2025
no eyewitnesses or documents to prove the alleged
incident. The witnesses cited by the prosecution are
hired. Annexure V wound certificate is forged, as it is
dated 27.05.2015, whereas the incident allegedly
occurred on 28.02.2015. Therefore, Annexures I FIR
and III final report may be quashed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposes the Crl. M.C. He contends that the Investigating
Officer has laid the final report with ample material to
establish the petitioner's complicity in the crime. He
further submits that the Crl.M.C is filed nine years after
Annexure III final report, that too without any
convincing explanation for the inordinate delay.
6. There is a profusion 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'),
2025:KER:77340
CRL.MC NO. 9245 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:77340
CRL.MC NO. 9245 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:77340
CRL.MC NO. 9245 OF 2025
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. In the instant case, the prosecution alleges
that the petitioner had abused and assaulted the defacto
complainant, and caused hurt to him. On the contrary,
the petitioner asserts that the crime is registered as a
counterblast to the prosecution initiated by the
2025:KER:77340
CRL.MC NO. 9245 OF 2025
petitioner against the defacto complainant. The
petitioner also contends that, although the incident
allegedly occurred on 28.02.2015, the wound certificate
is dated 27.05.2015, which proves that the document is
concocted. The prosecution has cited witnesses and
produced documents to prove the charge. Whether
such materials are sufficient is a matter to be ultimately
determined after trial. Moreover, the petitioner has not
offered any plausible explanation for the nine-year delay
in filing the Crl. M.C.
11. On a scrutiny of the materials on record and
the rival submissions made across the Bar, I find that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner in the
materials on record, if taken on its face value, prima
facie disclose the commission of the offences. Hence, I
am not satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the
inherent powers of this Court to quash the final report
2025:KER:77340
CRL.MC NO. 9245 OF 2025
and all further proceedings pursuant to it. Moreover, the
petitioner has not offered any convincing explanation for
the inordinate delay of nine long years in filing this Crl.
M.C., after the filing of the final report. It is when the
case is scheduled for trial that the petitioner has
approached this Court.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the Crl.
M.C., reserving the petitioner's right to raise all his
contentions and adduce necessary evidence before the
Trial Court. Nonetheless, I direct the Trial Court to
dispose of C.C.No.1835/2015, in accordance with law
and as expeditiously as possible, untrammelled by any
observation contained in this order.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm17/10/2025
2025:KER:77340
CRL.MC NO. 9245 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
397/2015 OF THE THIRUVALLAM POLICE
STATION
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZAR DATED
29.03.2015
Annexure III CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CC. 1835/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-
II, NEYYATTINKARA, DATED 24.09.2016
Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN CRL RP 345/2024 DATED
04.07.2025
Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED
27.05.2015
Annexure VI TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH MAHAZAR
