Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Abdulrahiman Fasarudheen @ Fasar vs The State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1809 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1809 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 February, 2026

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Abdulrahiman Fasarudheen @ Fasar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2026

                                                              2026:KER:14337
Crl.M.C No.7993/19
                                         -:1:-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

     THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947

                               CRL.MC NO. 7993 OF 2019

   CRIME NO.741/2014 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

             IN SC NO.1279 OF 2017 OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT,
                                 KOZHIKODE

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

                     ABDULRAHIMAN FASARUDHEEN @ FASAR,,​
                     AGED 25 YEARS​
                     S/O.ABDULKHADER,
                     SEENATH MANZIL,
                     NO.7/28/1, MAHALAKSHMI ROAD,
                     P.O.UCHILA, UDUPPI,
                     KARNATAKA


                     BY ADVS. SHRI.SRINATH GIRISH​
                              SRI.P.JERIL BABU​



RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT :

         1           THE STATE OF KERALA,​
                     REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                     HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                     ERNAKULAM-682031

         2           VICTIM​


                     SRI RENJIT GEORGE, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.02.2026 , THE COURT ON 19.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                  2026:KER:14337
Crl.M.C No.7993/19
                                            -:2:-


                                           ORDER

The accused in S.C.No.1279/2017 on the files of the Additional

Sessions Court for the Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities and Sexual

Violence Towards Women and Children, Kozhikode, has filed this petition

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(in short,

'Cr.PC') to quash the proceedings against him in the said case. The

allegation against the petitioner is that he committed the offences under

Sections 366A & 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'), and

Sections 5(j)(ii)(l) & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (in short, 'POCSO Act').

2.​ The prosecution case is summarised as follows:

On 22.10.2014, the petitioner enticed the victim, a minor girl aged 14 years, to leave her residence at Vezhipur, within the limits of Thamarassery Police Station, and managed to compel her to travel to Mysore from where the petitioner took her to Nepal and indulged in sexual relationship with her in a rented room resulting in that minor girl getting impregnated and delivering a female baby. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3.​ In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he

is totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against him. It 2026:KER:14337

is further contended by the petitioner that none of the offences alleged

against him are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4.​ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5.​ One of the main arguments advanced by the learned counsel

for the petitioner to quash the proceedings against the petitioner is that

the offence alleged against the petitioner had taken place in Nepal, and

hence the Court at Kozhikode has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial

in the absence of the necessary sanction accorded by the Central

Government under Section 188 Cr.PC. There is absolutely no basis for

the above argument since the offence alleged against the petitioner

commenced the moment when he managed to entice and compel the

victim to leave her residence at Vezhipur in Thamarassery. It is true that

the petitioner is alleged to have indulged in sexual relationship with that

minor girl at Nepal. But, there is absolutely no bar for the Court having

jurisdiction over the place of residence of the victim at Vezhipur to

proceed with the trial in the case, since the offence alleged against the

petitioner commenced at that place.

2026:KER:14337

6.​ Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the offence under Section 366A IPC is not attracted in

the facts and circumstances of the case since there is no allegation that

the victim girl was taken to Nepal for forced or seduced illicit intercourse

with another person. With regard to the above contention, it has to be

stated that the allegations against the petitioner clearly constitute the

offence under Section 366 IPC. It is for the Trial Court to decide at the

appropriate stage of the proceedings as to whether the petitioner has to

be charged under Section 366 IPC or any other analogous penal

provisions in connection with the facts revealed from the final report and

other relevant records. At any rate, the petitioner cannot be heard to

say that the prosecution proceedings against him are liable to be

terminated due to misquoting of any penal provision by the investigating

agency.

7.​ The final report and the accompanying records relied on by

the prosecution would clearly bring home the offences under Sections

366 & 376 IPC and also the relevant penal provisions of the POCSO Act

in connection with the act of the petitioner enticing and taking away a

minor girl from her residence at Thamarassery to Nepal, and indulging in 2026:KER:14337

sexual relationship with her, resulting in impregnation and delivery of a

female baby. In the above circumstances, it is not possible for this Court

to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC to terminate the

prosecution proceedings at the threshold, in a case like this. Needless to

say, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the proceedings against him,

cannot be allowed.

In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.

(sd/-) G. GIRISH, JUDGE DST 2026:KER:14337

APPENDIX

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 ACCUSED'S COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.741/2014 DATED 23.10.2014, THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL, ALONG WITH THE FIS

ANNEXURE A2 ACCUSED'S COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 12.12.2017 ALONG MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS U/S 161 OF CR.P.C

ANNEXURE A3 ACCUSED'S COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO OF THE ACCUSED

ANNEXURE A4 ACCUSED'S COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, THAMARASSERY FOR ALTERNATION OF CHARGE AGAINST THE PETITIONER

ANNEXURE A5 ACCUSED'S COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE SUB INSPECT OF POLICE, THAMARASERY BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, THAMARASSERY FOR ADDING OFFENCE U/S366(A) OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER

ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION NUMBERED AS C.A.1458/2019 AND ENDORSEMENT THREON

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter