Kerala High Court
Siyad vs State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:79034
CRL.MC NO. 7482 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7482 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.2984 OF 2022
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 SIYAD
AGED 56 YEARS
VELIYAMPARAMB,CHATHANAD,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
2 VAHEEDA
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O ZIYAD, VELIYAMPARAMBIL,CHATHANAD,ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688001
3 AYISHA ZIYAD
AGED 24 YEARS
VELIYAMPARAMB,CHATHANAD,ALAPPUZHA,, PIN - 688001
4 ANSHAD
AGED 42 YEARS
PARISHA MANZIL,BOROPURAYIDOM,ALISSERY WARD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
5 KHADEEJA
AGED 32 YEARS
W/O ANSHAD, BOROPURAYIDOM, ALISSERYWARD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.R.SANISH
SRI.KARTHIK S. ACHARYA
SMT.ANJANA K.P.
2025:KER:79034
CRL.MC NO. 7482 OF 2024
2
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 RIYAS SIDIQUE
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O SIDIQUE,KOCHUPURAIKAL HOUSE, VANDANAM P.O,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688005
BY ADV SRI.T.U.SUJITH KUMAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:79034
CRL.MC NO. 7482 OF 2024
3
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2025
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 5 in
C.C.No.30/2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First-Class Magistrate - I, Alappuzha, which has been
registered against the accused persons for allegedly
committing the offences punishable under Sections 341,
323, 324, 294(b), 506(2) r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The crux of the prosecution's case is that, on
24.09.2022, the petitioners had attacked the de facto
complainant(2nd respondent) in the parking area near
the court premises of the District Court, Alappuzha,
when they were returning after the mediation discussion
in MC No.193/2022. The petitioners 1 and 2 had
obstructed the de facto complainant, and the 2 nd
petitioner had slapped him on his face, the 3 rd petitioner
hit him on his head with a helmet and the 4 th petitioner
2025:KER:79034
CRL.MC NO. 7482 OF 2024
attacked the de facto complainant on the rear side of his
body. The petitioners 1 and 5 twisted his hand and
caused hurt to him. Thus, the accused have committed
the above offence.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners the learned Public Prosecutor and the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners are totally innocent of the
accusations levelled against them. Even if the
allegations in Annexure A1 complaint are taken on its
face value, the same will not attract the offences charged
against the petitioners. In fact, the de facto complainant
is the husband of the 3rd petitioner and the petitioners 1
and 2 are the parents of the 3rd petitioner. The 4th
petitioner is the husband of the 5th petitioner and the 5th
petitioner is the sister of the 3rd petitioner. It is only to
wreak vengeance on the petitioners that Annexure A1
2025:KER:79034
CRL.MC NO. 7482 OF 2024
complaint has been filed. The entire allegations in the
complaint are fabricated for the purpose of harassing the
petitioners. Hence, Annexure A1 complaint may be
quashed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently oppose the
Crl.M.C. They submitted that Annexure A1 complaint
was filed as early as on 30.09.2022. It is after two years
that the present Crl.M.C. has been filed. The petitioners'
sole intention is to protract the trial in the crime. There
are cogent material to substantiate that the petitioners
have committed the above offences. It is taking into
consideration the statements of the 2nd respondent and
CW2 that cognizance was taken. The petitioners have
not challenged the order taking cognizance of the
offences. The Crl.M.C is devoid of any merits and may
be dismissed.
6. There is a profusion of precedential authority
2025:KER:79034
CRL.MC NO. 7482 OF 2024
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 to our purpose are:
2025:KER:79034
CRL.MC NO. 7482 OF 2024
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
2025:KER:79034
CRL.MC NO. 7482 OF 2024
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. In the instant case, the petitioners contend
that Annexure A1 complaint has been filed only to wreak
vengeance on them, and there are matrimonial disputes
between the 3rd petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
Even if the allegations in Annexure A1 complaint are
2025:KER:79034
CRL.MC NO. 7482 OF 2024
taken on its face value, the offences alleged against the
petitioners will not be attracted. On the contrary, the
respondents contend that there are sufficient materials
to prove that the petitioners had caused hurt to the 2nd
respondent and also committed the above offences.
Moreover, though Annexure A1 complaint was filed on
30.9.2022, the present Crl.M.C. has been filed nearly two
years after the cognizance was taken.
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 petitioners, if taken on its
face value, prima facie disclose the commission of the
offences. Moreover, there is no satisfactory explanation
in the Crl.MC. for the inordinate delay in filing the
Crl.M.C. Hence, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case
to exercise the inherent powers of this Court to quash
Annexure A1 complaint and all further proceedings
pursuant to it.
2025:KER:79034
CRL.MC NO. 7482 OF 2024
In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the Crl.
M.C., but by reserving the petitioners' right to raise all
their contentions before the Trial Court. The Trial Court
shall consider the same, in accordance with law,
untrammelled by any observation contained in this order.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm23/10/2025
2025:KER:79034
CRL.MC NO. 7482 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF CMP NO.2984/2022 FILED
BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-L,
ALAPPUZHA
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF
THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2 ND RESPONDENT
AS CW1
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF
THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT'S FRIEND SAMEER
DATED 05/12/2022 IN CMP 2984/2022 AS CW2
