[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shamnad vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:12786
CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
CRIME NO.554/2024 OF Pothanikadu Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.527 OF 2024 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, KOTHAMANGALAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 7:
1 SHAMNAD
S/O ALIYAR, PAZHAMBILLIL(H), MADIYOORKARA,
PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA, PIN -
686671
2 MAKKAR
S/O ALIYAR, PAZHAMBILLIL (H), MADIYOOR KARA
PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA, PIN -
686671
3 SALIM. P.S
S/O SAID MUHAMMED, PAZHAMBILLIL (H), MADIYOOR KARA,
PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O, PALLARIMANGALAM
VILLAGE,KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM RURAL,
KERALA, PIN - 686671
4 AJIMS
S/O ALIYAR, PAZHAMBILLIL (H), MADIYOOR KARA
PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA, PIN -
686671
2026:KER:12786
CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
2
5 MYTHEENKUTTY
S/O MUHAMMED, PAZHAMBILLIL (H), MADIYOOR KARA,
PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA, PIN -
686671
6 MUHAMMED SHA
S/O EBRAHIM,AGED 65, PAZHAMBILLY(H), MADIYOOR KARA,
KUDANUNDA BHAGAM, PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O,
PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA, PIN - 686671
7 EBRAHIM.P.A
S/O ALIYAR, AGED 70 YEARS,PAZHAMBILLY (H), MADIYOOR
KARA, PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA, PIN -
686671
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.R.ASHOK KUMAR
SHRI.RIJO JOY
SHRI.RISHIKESAN N.
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/CW1,2,5,6:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
POTHANIKAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
(RURAL),, PIN - 686671
3 SHIHAB
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O MYTHEEN, VARAPILLIKUDY (H),MADIYOOR KARA,
PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA, PIN -
686671
2026:KER:12786
CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
3
4 FAISAD
AGED 40 YEARS
DRIVER, MAROTTIKAL (H), MADIYOOR KARA,
PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA, PIN -
686671
5 FAISAL
AGED 42 YEARS
DRIVER,MAROTTIKAL (H), MADIYOOR KARA,
PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA, PIN -
686671
6 HAMSA
AGED 56 YEARS
KAROTHUKUZHY (H), MADIYOOR KARA,
PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA, PIN -
686671
SRI.M.P.PRASANATH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 10.02.2026, THE COURT ON 13.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12786
CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
4
C.S.DIAS,J.
====================
Crl. M.C.No. 1076 of 2026
------------------------------------ --
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.527 of
2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of
First Class-II, Kothamangalam ('Trial Court', in short), which
has originated from Crime No.554 of 2024 registered by the
Pothanikad Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the
commission of the offences punishable under Sections
296(b), 115(2) and 126(2) read with Section 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS, in short).
2. The gravamen of the prosecution in Annexure A1
final report is that, the accused persons, in furtherance of
their common intention, being aggrieved by the defacto
complainant's (3rd respondent) opposition to the Pazhambilli
Family's demand to administer and manage the Madiyoor
Mosque and with the intention to cause hurt to CW1, on
2026:KER:12786
CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
09.08.2024, at approximately 13.15 hours, while the prayers
were going on in the Mosque, the 3 rd accused spoke rudely to
the Ustad of the Mosque. When CW5 attempted to intervene
in the matter and stop the 3rd accused from assaulting the
Ustad, the 1st accused hit CW5 on the left side of his head.
When CW1 attempted to intervene in the matter and remove
CW5, the 3rd accused wrongfully restrained him, and the 1 st
accused hit CW1 on his left eye, the 2 nd accused kicked CW1
on the left side of his abdomen, the 4 th accused hit CW1 on
his chest and the 5th accused slapped on his left cheek. In the
above incident, accused Nos.1 to 7 caused hurt to CWs.1, 2,
5 and 6. 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 strenuously
argues that, even if the allegations in Annexure A1 final
report are taken on their face value, the same will not attract
the offences alleged against the petitioners. A reading of the
2026:KER:12786
CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
wound certificate produced along with Annexure A1 final
report establishes that none of the injured had suffered any
injuries. The incident that has been mentioned in the wound
certificate does not corroborate the prosecution allegations.
Likewise, accused Nos.1 to 5 named in the FIR and the final
report are not the same persons. There is a totally
contradictory case built up in Annexure A1 final report. The
entire prosecution case is a concocted, with the sole
intention to implicate the petitioners as accused in the crime.
Even if the petitioners face the trial, it will not lead to their
conviction. Therefore, Annexure A1 final report may be
quashed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the
Crl.M.C. He submits that, if the allegations in Annexure A1
final report are taken on their face value, the same would
obviously constitute the offences alleged against the
petitioners. There are specific overt acts attributed against
each of the petitioners, which proves their culpability in the
crime. The medical records of the injured also show that all
2026:KER:12786
CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
of them suffered hurt. The prosecution proposes to examine
the eye-witnesses and has documentary evidence to prove
the involvement of the petitioners in the crime. Although the
final report was filed on 13.10.2024, it is after 1½ years that
the petitioners have chosen to file this Crl.M.C., which by
itself substantiates the hollowness in the case. This Court
may not embark upon a mini trial and come to a conclusion
that the accused are not involved in the case. Therefore, the
Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.
6. The specific case of the prosecution is that, the
petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, had
wrongfully restrained CW5 and assaulted him. When CWs.1,
2 and 6 attempted to intervene in the matter, they were also
assaulted in the incident. Prima facie, the wound certificates
produced along with the final report prove that all the
witnesses have suffered injuries in the incident that took
place on 09.08.2024. There are specific allegations
attributed against each of the petitioners.
2026:KER:12786
CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
7. It is well settled that this Court has broad plenary
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, which corresponds to Section 528 of the BNSS,
to quash criminal proceedings. However, such inherent
power, though expansive in nature, is not unbridled or
unlimited. They are to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection, and within the parameters delineated by
judicial precedents. One of the elementary principles to
quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in
the first information report, final report or the complaint
are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,
the same will not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused. (Read the decisions
in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and
others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others [(2023) 18
SCC 399], Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Others
2026:KER:12786
CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
[(2022) 16 SCC 117] and Monica Kumar and Another v.
State of U.P. and Others [(2008) 8 SCC 781]).
8. In Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) [2025
KHC 6914], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
inherent power under Section 482 of the Code is
extraordinary, but must be exercised sparingly. It is the
duty of the High Court to intervene where continuation of
criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process
of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and
criminal colour has been artificially given to it. Conversely,
where disputed questions of fact arise requiring
adjudication, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial.
On an overall consideration of the facts, the law and
the materials on record, and on prima facie finding that
there are specific overt acts attributed against each of the
petitioners, I am not convinced and satisfied that this is a
fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS. The Crl.M.C. is devoid of any
2026:KER:12786
CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
merits and only liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the
Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but without prejudice to the right of
the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the
Trial Court, including filing applications for discharge, if
the charge has not been framed till date. If such
applications are filed, the Trial Court is directed to
consider and dispose the applications, in accordance with
law, untramelled by any observations made in this order.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2026:KER:12786
CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1076 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE A1 FINAL REPORT/
CHARGE SHEET AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN SAID CC.NO. 527 /2024 ON THE FILE OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE NO.II
COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM FOR THE TRIAL OF
OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 296(B), 115(2),
126(2), 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA
SANHITHA (BNS), 2023
