Kerala High Court
Shehir Latheef vs State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:78772
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. 9336 OF 2025
CRIME NO.585/2023 OF Kanjirappally Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.470 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KANJIRAPPALLY
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 SHEHIR LATHEEF
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O ABDUL LATHEEF,
REISIDNG AT PARAKKAL HOUSE, KOLIKADAVU BAGAM,
KANJIRAPALLY KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507
2 NAJEEB SHIBILY
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O SHIBILY.P.H,
RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PARAKADAVU BAGAM, KANJIRAPALLY
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507
3 ABDUSHAJI,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/ O SHAJIMON N.E, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PARAKADAVU BAGAM, KANJIRAPALLY
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SHRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
SMT.GANGA A.SANKAR
SMT.KRISHNAPRIYA R.
SMT.ANJU DONY
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
CRL.MC NO. 9336 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:78772
OTHER PRESENT:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI M P PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 9336 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:78772
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2025
The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in
C.C.No.470/2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First-Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally, which arises out
of Crime No.585/2023 registered by the Kanjirappally
Police Station, Kottayam, against the accused persons for
allegedly committing the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 506(i), 323, 294(b) and 332 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on
19.04.2023, CW2, a lineman of the Kerala State
Electricity Board ('KSEB', for short), had gone to the
house of the accused 1 to 3 to disconnect the electricity
connection due to non-payment of the electricity
charges. Shockingly, the accused 1 to 3 chased the CW2
in a vehicle, caught hold of him, assaulted him and
threatened him to do away his life. They also tore CW2's
shirt and obstructed him from discharging his official
2025:KER:78772
duties. Thus, the accused have committed the above
offences.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, even if the allegations in Annexure A1 FIR and
Annexure A2 final report are taken on their face value,
the offences will not be attracted. As the CW2 is an
employee of the KSEB, which is a company since
01.11.2013, the offence under Section 332 of the IPC will
not be attracted, because the CW2 is not a public
servant. Moreover, it was the CW2 who misbehaved with
the wife of the first petitioner. It is only to prevent the
petitioners from filing any complaint that the CW1 has
filed the present false complaint. In any given case, the
allegations in Annexure A2 final report are per se false.
Therefore, Annexures AI FIR and A2 final report may be
quashed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes
2025:KER:78772
the Crl. M.C. He contends that there are sufficient
materials to substantiate the petitioners' culpability in
the crime. The KSEB is an instrumentality of the State.
Therefore, the CW2 is a public servant. The contentions
raised before this Court are all matters to be decided by
the Trial Court. Annexure A2 final report was filed on
25.05.2023. The very fact that the petitioners have
approached this Court two and half years after the filing
of the final report proves the hollowness in the Crl.M.C.
Hence, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.
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 Others [(2006) 6 SCC 736], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after exhaustively considering the
2025:KER:78772
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
2025:KER:78772
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:78772
rule. Although the power is quite broad and wide, it is to
be exercised sparingly and with caution.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner has alleged
that the CW2 is not a public servant because the KSEB is
a private company since 01.11.2013 onwards.
Therefore, the offence under Section 332 of the IPC will
not lie. However, on scrutiny of materials on record, I
find that the specific allegation against the petitioners is
that they abused and assaulted CW2, which prima facie
constitutes the other offences charged against them.
Nonetheless, the above contentions are matters that
have to be decided by the Trial Court, after the
examination of witnesses and the documentary evidence.
Furthermore, although Annexure A2 final report was
filed on 25.05.2023, it is after two and half years that the
petitioners have filed the Crl.M.C.
10. 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
2025:KER:78772
face value, prima facie discloses the commission of the
above offences. Moreover, the petitioners have not
offered any convincing explanation for the inordinate
delay in filing this Crl. M.C., after the filing of the final
report. Hence, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case
to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS and quash Annexures A1 and
A2 and all further proceedings pursuant to it.
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, including filing
an application for discharge, if the charge has not been
framed. If such an application is filed, the Trial Court
shall consider the application, in accordance with law,
untrammelled by any observation contained in this order.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/23.10.25
2025:KER:78772
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.585/2023 OF KANJIRAPALLY POLICE
STATION- KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO. 585/2023 OF KANJIRAPALLY POLICE
STATION- KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN PUNJAB
STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. BOOSHAN
CHANDRAN AND ANOTHER
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ABDUL
RAHMAN VS. THE STATE OF KERALA (2020(3)
KLT 628
