Kerala High Court
Anilkumar vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 3293 OF 2021
1
2025:KER:78681
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 3293 OF 2021
CRIME NO.1515/2015 OF Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.744 OF 2017 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
ANILKUMAR,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.K.S. AYYAPPAN T.C. NO. 20/1050, DURGA NAGAR,
KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO. 1515/2015 OF FOR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ).
2 MOHANKUMAR,
S/O. KUMARAN NAIR, JAYAREKHA (H), T.C. NO. 42/127,
SREEVARAHAM, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
CRL.MC NO. 3293 OF 2021
2
2025:KER:78681
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 3293 OF 2021
3
2025:KER:78681
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3293 OF 2021
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the 4 th accused in C.C.No.744/2017
on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,
Thiruvananthapuram, which arises out of Crime
No.1515/2015, registered by the Fort Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram, against the accused persons for
allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections
406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
('IPC' in short).
2. The essence of the prosecution case is that, the
accused 1 and 2, the Managing Director and Director of
Kalpetta Jankshema Maruthi Chits Pvt. Ltd., Kalpetta, along
with the 3rd accused, the Branch Manager of the said
company, had induced the defacto complainant to join a chitty
conducted by the company for a total sala of Rs.10/- lakh and
made him pay the first subscription on 19.03.2012. Even after
the completion of the chitty, the accused did not pay the
CRL.MC NO. 3293 OF 2021
2025:KER:78681
prized amount. Subsequently, the accused 2 to 4, as per the
instruction of the 1st accused, issued three cheques in favour
of the 2nd respondent. But the cheques were dishonored. Thus,
the accused have committed the above offences.
3. Heard; the learned Counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that,
even if the allegations in Anneuxre-I FIR and Annexure-II Final
Report are taken on its face value, the offences alleged in the
charge will not be attracted against the petitioner. It is
undisputed that it was the accused 1 to 3 who had allegedly
induced the defacto complainant to join the chitty and they
were the ones who received the entire chitty amount from the
2nd respondent. The petitioner, at that point of time, was
employed as the Branch Manager of the Attingal Branch of the
said company till 16.08.2014. It is only on 16.08.2014, as
evidenced by Annexure-III proceedings, that the petitioner
was transferred to the Manacaud Branch. All that the
petitioner did was, he along with the accused 2 and 3, signed
and issued three cheques to the 2 nd respondent as instructed
CRL.MC NO. 3293 OF 2021
2025:KER:78681
by the 1st accused. By no stretch of imagination can the said
allegations be held to attract the offences under Sections 406
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner, as
he had not received any money from the 2 nd respondent. Thus,
Annexure-I FIR and all further proceedings pursuant to it are
unsustainable against the petitioner. Therefore, Annexures-I
and II and all further proceedings may be quashed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the
petitioner had signed three cheques in the status of the
Branch Manager of the Manacaud Brach and the same were
issued to the 2nd respondent. However, the said cheques got
dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in the accounts of the
company. Therefore, the materials on record reveal the
petitioner has also committed the above offences.
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'), corresponding to Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. In India Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and
CRL.MC NO. 3293 OF 2021
2025:KER:78681
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 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
CRL.MC NO. 3293 OF 2021
2025:KER:78681
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 rule. Although the power is quite broad and wide, it is to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
9. A reading of Annexure-I FIR and Annexure-II Final
Report explicitly reveal that the 2 nd respondent had given the
CRL.MC NO. 3293 OF 2021
2025:KER:78681
first installment towards the chitty on 19.03.2012. He paid
the entire subscription before the petitioner had joined the
Manacaud Branch of the company. The specific allegation
against the petitioner is that he had signed the three cheques
that were issued to the 2nd respondent towards repayment of
the prized amount. Annexure-III proceedings clearly reveal
that the petitioner joined the Manacaud Branch only on
16.08.2014. By that time the entire proceedings leading to the
repayment of the amount had already been completed. There
is no material to show that the petitioner was in charge of the
day to day affairs of the Manacaud Branch at the time of
receipt of the subscription and when the amount payable had
accrued. It is only towards the repayment of the subscription
amount in the status of a Branch Manager that the petitioner
had executed the three cheques, that too as instructed by the
Managing Director of the Company. Therefore, I find that,
even if the allegations are taken on its face value and accepted
in their entirety, the same do not constitute offences under
Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC as against the petitioner.
Even if the petitioner undergoes the ordeal of trial, it is highly
CRL.MC NO. 3293 OF 2021
2025:KER:78681
improbable that he would be convicted. Thus, I am satisfied
and convinced that the offences alleged against the petitioner
in Annexure-II Final Report is unsustainable against the
petitioner.
In the result, I allow the Crl.M.C. Accordingly, I quash
Annexure-I FIR, Annexure-II Final Report and all further
proceedings in C.C.No.744/2017 on the file of the Court of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate-II Thiruvananthapuram, as
against the petitioner. Nonetheless, it is clarified that the Trial
Court shall proceed with the trial as against the other accused
persons untrammelled by any observations in this order.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/22.10.25
CRL.MC NO. 3293 OF 2021
2025:KER:78681
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS IN
CRIME NO. 1515/2015 OF FORT POLICE STATION.
Annexure 1I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO. 1515/2015 OF FOR POLICE STATION.
Annexure 1I1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF HE GENERAL
MANAGER DATED 16.8.2014.
Annexure 1V A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL
MANAGER DATED 26.02.2015.
Annexure V A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARDS OF THE
PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE.
Annexure V1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW CARD OF THE
PETITIONER FRO RCC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure V11 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE .
