Kerala High Court
Muhammed Nafi vs State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
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. 9466 OF 2025
CRIME NO.554/2022 OF Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.670 OF 2023
OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,
KOZHIKODE
PETITIONERS/ACCSUED 1 TO 12:
1 MUHAMMED NAFI,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O IBRAHIM, KOTTARAKKOTH HOUSE, PERUMPALLY
P.O,KAVUMPURAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673586
2 NASAR @ NASAR VALANJAPARA,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O ALAVI, NAMBOORIKKUNNU HOUSE, PERUMPALLY
P.O,KAVUMPURAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673586
3 ASHRAF ,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O ALAVI, PARAMMAL PULLUMALAYIL HOUSE, PERUMPALLY
P.O,KAVUMPURAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673586
4 AARIF K.K,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O MOIDEENKUNJI, PULLUMALA HOUSE, PERUMPALLY
P.O,KAVUMPURAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673586
5 NAVAS P M,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O AHAMMEDKUTTY, PULLUMALA HOUSE, PERUMPALLY
P.O,KAVUMPURAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673586
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
2
6 SHAKKEER A.U ,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O UMMAR,AMBALAKKULAM HOUSE, KOTTARAKKOTH,
PERUMPALLY P.O, KAVUMPURAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673586
7 ASHAR ALI,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O MAMMUNNI, VALLATHAZHATHU HOUSE, KUPPAYAKKODU,
EENGHAMPUZHA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673580
8 YOONUS T K,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O ABDURAHIMAN, THIYYAKKANDI HOUSE, PERUMPALLY
P.O, KAVUMPURAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673586
9 MAHAR ALI V K,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O USSAIN, VAYANADANKUNNU HOUSE, PERUMPALLY P.O,
KAVUMPURAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673586
0 SHAMNAS MUHAMMED,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED, PULLUMALAYIL HOUSE, PERUMPALLY P.O,
KAVUMPURAM.KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673586
11 SAINUL ABID,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O MOIDHI, MOOSARIKKANDI HOUSE, EENGHAPUZHA P.O,
PUTHUPPADY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673586
12 SAJID P M ,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O ABDUL BASHEER, PULLUMALAYIL HOUSE, PERUMPALLY
P.O, KAVUMPURAM,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673586
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K C MOHAMED RASHID
SHRI.P.V.ANOOP
SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
SHRI.ABIN BENNY
SHRI.DENNISE JACOB SAVY
SMT.ASMI M.A.
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
3
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
THAMARASSEY POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673573
OTHER PRESENT:
PP 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:
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
4
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2025
The petitioners are accused 1 to 12 in
S.C.No.670/2023 on the file of the Assistant Sessions
Court-III, Kozhikode, which arises out of Crime
No.554/2022 registered by the Thamarassery Police
Station, Kozhikode, as against the accused persons for
allegedly committing the offences punishable under
Sections 145, 147, 148, 283, 341, 324, 323, 324, 332,
506, 427, 308 and 143 r/w Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3(l) of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 5 of
the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and
Payment of Compensation Act, 2019.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that, on
19.09.2022, at about 18.00 hours, the accused person in
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
prosecution of their common intention, had formed an
unlawful assembly and obstructed and intimidated the
police officers who were discharging their official duties,
vandalized a police jeep, assaulted the police officers and
caused hurt to them. 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 contends
that Annexure B final report is unsustainable in law
because it has been prepared in a printed form.
Similarly, the Section 161 statements of the 24
witnesses have also been recorded in a printed form. He
relies on the decisions of this Court in George v. State of
Kerala [2024 KHC Online 1619] and Jaikrishnan P. v.
State of Kerala[2024(5) KHC 615] in support of his
contentions. He argues that, therefore, the entire
proceedings are liable to be quashed.
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
5. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposes the
Crl. M.C. He submits that Annexure B final report is
computer written. All the details mandated under Section
173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), and the
brief facts of the case have been mentioned and the
documents have been annexed with the final report.
Likewise, the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the
witnesses have been computer written and signed by the
Investigating Officer. The principles laid down in the
decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the case.
The final report and the Section 161 statements have
been prepared as per the procedure contemplated under
the Cr.P.C. The statements of the witnesses clearly reveal
that they are different and are not prepared in a
mechanical manner. Furthermore, Annexure B final
report was filed as early as on 23.01.2023. It is nearly
after three years that the petitioners have approached
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
this Court to quash the proceedings. The petitioners'
intention is only to protract the Trial, which may not be
permitted by this Court.
6. The bone of contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that, Annexure B final report and
Section 161 statements have been prepared in a printed
form, which are against the principles laid down by this
Court in George and Jaikrishnan P.'s cases(supra).
7. In George 's case(supra), this Court quashed
the proceedings since it was found that the final report
was prepared in a casual manner, without sufficient
material to substantiate the culpability of the accused in
that case. Likewise, in Jaikrishnan P.'s case(supra), this
Court held that the Section 161 statements were not
acceptable, as they were in a printed form and in the
same words.
8. In the case at hand, I find that the Investigating
Officer has filled the relevant details in the respective
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
columns and given the brief facts of the case as
postulated under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. He has also
appended all the documents relied on by the prosecution.
Similarly, the Section 161 statements of the witnesses
have been recorded in their own words. The only thing
is that they are computer written, which is the present
practice that is being followed in the State, and is not
against the procedure contemplated under the Cr.P.C.
The said procedure is in fact beneficial to the petitioners
and the court, because the transcripts are legible and
readable. In any given case, it has not caused any
prejudice to the petitioners. Furthermore, the
petitioners have not given any convincing explanation for
the inordinate delay of three years in filing the Crl.M.C.
9. 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
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. 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
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
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
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"
11. 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.
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
12. 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.
13. On a scrutiny of the materials on record and
the rival submissions made across the Bar, and on finding
that the Investigating Officer has prepared the final
report as well as the Section 161 statements as
contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, I
am not convinced that this is a fit case to exercise the
inherent powers of this Court to quash Annexure B final
report and all further proceedings pursuant to it.
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
Moreover, the petitioners have not offered any convincing
explanation for the inordinate delay of three years in
filing this Crl. M.C., after the filing of Annexure B final
report.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the Crl.
M.C., but by reserving the right of the petitioners to
raise all their contentions and adduce necessary evidence
before the Trial Court. Notwithstanding, the dismissal, I
direct the Trial Court to dispose of S.C.No.670/2023, in
accordance with law, untrammelled by any observation
contained in this order.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm23/10/2025
2025:KER:78911
CRL.MC NO. 9466 OF 2025
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED
20.09.2022 IN CRIME NO.554/2022 OF
THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION.
Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
23.01.2023 IN CRIME NO.554/2022 OF
THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION.
