[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ahammed Koya vs Mohammed U.P on 18 February, 2026
2026:KER:14351
Crl.M.C.No.7446/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7446 OF 2018
CRIME NO.638/2012 OF CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
IN CC NO.342 OF 2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -I,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1, 2, 4 AND 5:
1 AHAMMED KOYA,
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O.ATHRUMANKUTTY HAJI,
MANNASSERY HOUSE, MUTTANCHERRY (PO),
NARIKUNI (VIA),
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2 MOHAMMED BASHEER,
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.AHAMMED KOYA,
MANNASSERY HOUSE,
MUTTANCHERRY(P.O.),
NARIKUNI (VIA),
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
3 JABIR.M.,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.AHAMMED KOYA,
MANNASSERY HOUSE,
MUTTANCHERRY(P.O.),
NARIKUNI (VIA),
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
4 SUBAIDA,
AGED 36 YEARS,
W/O.MUHAMMED BASHEER,
MANNASSERY HOUSE,
MUTTANCHERRY(P.O.),
NARIKUNI (VIA),
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2026:KER:14351
Crl.M.C.No.7446/2018
2
BY ADVS.SHRI.P.V.ANOOP
SRI.K.V.SREERAJ
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 MOHAMMED U.P.,
AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O.ATHRUMANKUTTY HAJI,
UMMARUKUZHIPURAYIL,
MADAVOOR AMSOM,
MUTTANCHERRY (PO),
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN- 673 585.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.
BY ADVS.SMT.MEREENA.J.JOSEPH FOR R1
SHRI.N.PRASANNAN
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2026 , THE COURT ON 18.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:14351
Crl.M.C.No.7446/2018
3
ORDER
Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 in C.C No.342/2013 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode have filed this petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in the
aforesaid case.
2. The prosecution case is that on 02.12.2012 at about 8:30
a.m, the accused Nos.1 to 5 inflicted voluntary hurt upon the de facto
complainant by hitting with a boulder and also by beating with hands,
and criminally intimidated him in a public road. It is alleged that the
accused nurtured enmity with the de facto complainant in connection
with a dispute regarding the obstructions caused to a way leading to the
paddy field of the de facto complainant. Thus, the petitioners, along
with the third accused, are alleged to have committed the offence
punishable under Section 323, 324 and 506 I.P.C r/w Section 34 I.P.C.
3. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that
they are totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against
them. It is further contended that there is a delay of three days in
lodging the first information statement, and that another case has been
registered against the de facto complainant and others in connection
2026:KER:14351
with the criminal trespass into the house of the petitioners and outraging
the modesty of the 4th petitioner in the morning of 02.12.2012. The
aforesaid case is said to be pending before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode as C.C No.594/2013. Thus, it is contended
that the de facto complainant has preferred a false complaint against the
petitioners as a counterblast to the criminal case registered against him
and others.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
counsel for the first respondent/de facto complainant, and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. As already stated above, the case relates to the physical
assault and criminal intimidation alleged to have been perpetrated upon
the de facto complainant/first respondent at the instance of the
petitioners on 02.12.2012. The de facto complainant lodged the first
information statement with regard to the above incident on 05.12.2012.
According to him, the delay in lodging the complaint occurred since he
was under the expectation that the case could be amicably settled.
6. The delay of three days in lodging the first information
statement, by itself, cannot be a reason to quash the criminal
2026:KER:14351
prosecution launched against the petitioners. It is to be noted that the
de facto complainant had offered a plausible explanation for the above
delay. Likewise, the registration of a counter case against the de facto
complainant and others, also cannot be a reason to terminate the
prosecution proceedings in the case against the petitioners. The final
report and the accompanying records relied on by the investigating
agency would reveal that sufficient materials are brought forth in support
of the allegations levelled against the petitioners. It is for the Trial Court
to decide, after recording evidence, as to the truth or falsity of the
allegations against the petitioners. In a proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C this Court is not expected to conduct an enquiry or mini trial upon
the allegations and counter allegations raised by the parties. The
question of terminating the prosecution proceedings at the very inception
would arise only in such cases where this Court is satisfied that the
above course has to be adopted to prevent the abuse of process of Court
or to secure the ends of justice. As far as the present case is concerned,
there is absolutely no such circumstances warranting the interference of
this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to wind up the prosecution
proceedings. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the
proceedings against them, cannot be allowed.
2026:KER:14351
In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
2026:KER:14351
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 7446 OF 2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO.342/2013 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE VOURT-I, KOZHIKODE.
ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FI STATEMENT IN
CRIME NO.638/2012.
ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.641/2012 OF CHEVAYOOR POLICE, WHICH IS NOW
PENDING AS C.C.NO.594/2013 BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
KOZHIKODE.
