[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Remesanm M vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:15970
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1366 OF 2026
CRIME NO.90/2018 OF Traffic Police Station, KTM, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.3002 OF 2024
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II(MOBILE),KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
REMESANM M
AGED 53 YEARS
MANTHATHIL HOUSE, KARAPPUZHA VILLAGE,
KARAPPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 686003
BY ADVS.
SRI.SATHEESH MOHANAN
SHRI.SREEJITH S. NAIR
SMT.MAHIMA
SHRI.COLIN ANTONY DCRUZ
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C. No. 1366 of 2026 -:2:
2026:KER:15970
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in S.T. No.
3002/2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate-III, Kottayam ('Trial Court', for short),
which has originated from Crime No. 90/2018 registered
by the Traffic Police Station, Kottayam District, alleging
the commission of offences punishable under Sections
279 and 283 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 122 and
127 read with Section 201 and Section 179 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, and Sections 345 and 129 read with Section
177 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.
2. The petitioner has filed the Criminal
Miscellaneous Case to quash all further proceedings in
Annexure A1 final report.
3. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that;
On 12.01.2018, at around 09:50 hours, the
petitioner had ridden the motorcycle bearing registration
No. KL-5-Q 3107 without wearing a helmet, in a rash and
Crl. M.C. No. 1366 of 2026 -:3:
2026:KER:15970
negligent manner so as to endanger human life from R.R.
Junction. When the defacto complainant directed the
petitioner to stop the vehicle, he ignored the
instructions, in an arrogant manner and proceeded with
the vehicle without stopping the same. Subsequently, the
vehicle had stopped in the middle of the road, causing
traffic obstruction to pedestrians and other vehicles.
Thus, the petitioner has committed the above offences.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, even if the allegations in Annexure A1 final report
are taken on their face value, the same would not attract
the offence alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner
is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him.
There is no material to substantiate the petitioner's
culpability in the crime. Even if the petitioner withstands
the trial, it is not going to lead to a conviction. Therefore,
the proceedings may be quashed.
Crl. M.C. No. 1366 of 2026 -:4:
2026:KER:15970
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.
M.C. He submits that the crime was registered in the
year 2018. The trial in the case has progressed and has
now reached Sec.313 Cr.P.C. stage. It is after seven
years that the petitioner has approached this Court to
quash the proceedings. There are no bonafides in the
Crl.M.C. If the allegations in Annexure A1 are taken on
their face value, it will attract the offences alleged
against the petitioner. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be
dismissed.
6. The essence of the prosecution case against the
petitioner is that he drove a motorcycle in a rash and
negligent manner without a helmet, and he refused to
follow the instructions of the defacto complainant by not
stopping the vehicle at the signal. Subsequently, the
vehicle had stopped in a busy junction and caused
obstructions to pedestrians and other vehicles.
7. Indisputably, a reading of the allegations in
Annexure A1 final report clearly attracts the offences
Crl. M.C. No. 1366 of 2026 -:5:
2026:KER:15970
alleged against the petitioner. Moreover, though the FIR
was registered as early as 12.01.2018, it is after an
inordinate delay of seven years that the petitioner has
approached this Court to quash the proceedings when
the case is at the fag end of the trial. There is no
plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in
approaching this Court. Though the delay is per se not a
bar to entertain a Crl.M.C, this Court is not inclined to
exercise its inherent powers at this stage and quash the
proceedings, especially when the trial is at its fag end.
Moreover, prima facie, if the allegations are taken on
their face value; the same would attract the offences
alleged against the petitioner.
8. It is well-established that this Court has inherent
powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 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
Crl. M.C. No. 1366 of 2026 -:6:
2026:KER:15970
judicial precedents. One of the elementary principles to
quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in
the first information 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 [(2022) 16
SCC 117] and Monica Kumar and Another v. State of
U.P. and Others [(2008) 8 SCC 781]).
9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to
the facts, the materials on record and the rival
submissions made across the Bar, particularly
considering the fact that the allegations in Annexure A1
final report prima facie attract the offences alleged
against the petitioner and that the petitioner has
Crl. M.C. No. 1366 of 2026 -:7:
2026:KER:15970
approached this Court at the fag end of the trial, I am
not convinced that this is a fit case to exercise the
inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but
without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all
the contentions in Trial Court, which in turn is directed
to consider and dispose of the same, untrammelled by
any observations made in this order.
Sd/-
mtk C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
Crl. M.C. No. 1366 of 2026 -:8:
2026:KER:15970
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1366 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 90/2018 OF TRAFFIC POLICE
STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT AND PENDING AS
ST CASE NO. 3002 OF 2024 BEFORE THE COURT
OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST
CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM
