[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Soji.M.Philip vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:26777
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 959 OF 2022
IN C.C.NO.2035/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, CHENGANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SOJI.M.PHILIP,
AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O.M.Y.PHILIP,
MOONNUMURIYIL,CHENNITHALA.P.O., MAVELIKKARA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.REJI
SHRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
SHRI.SUNEESH KUMAR R.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANNAR POLICE STATION, MANNAR (PO),
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 622.
CRL.MC NO. 959 OF 2022
2
2026:KER:26777
3 M.Y.JOSE,
AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O.YOHANNAN, MOONNUMURIYIL,CHENNITHALA.P.O.,
MAVELIKKARA, PIN - 690 105.
BY SR.PP.SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 959 OF 2022
3
2026:KER:26777
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in
C.C.No.2035/2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate - 1, Chengannur, which has
originated from Crime No.595/2021 registered by the
Mannar Police Station, alleging the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 506(ii)
of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioner has filed this Criminal
Miscellaneous Case on the assertion that, even if the
allegations in Annexure - A1 FIR and Annexure - A2
Final Report are taken on their face value, the same
would not attract the offences alleged against the
petitioner. In fact, there are civil disputes between the
petitioner and the 3rd respondent, who is the paternal
uncle of the petitioner. It is only to pressurize the
petitioner to yield to the 3rd respondent's unlawful
CRL.MC NO. 959 OF 2022
2026:KER:26777
demands that he has deliberately got the crime
registered. The delay of 10 days in registering their
crime proves its falsity. Therefore, the entire
proceedings may be quashed.
3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is
that on 16.06.2021, at around 18.30 hours, the accused
person (the petitioner) knocked on the rear side door of
the 3rd respondent's house and he chopped the plantain,
coconut and mango trees in the 3rd respondent's
property. He also intimidated the 3 rd respondent's wife
by brandishing a knife at her and also caused a loss of
Rs.3,775/-. The above acts were deliberately committed
by the accused due to the civil litigation pending
between the parties.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterated the contentions in the Crl.M.C. He contends
CRL.MC NO. 959 OF 2022
2026:KER:26777
that even if the petitioner withstands the trial, it is not
going to lead to a conviction. Hence, the Crl.M.C may be
allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes
the Crl.M.C. He submits that the allegations in the FIR
and Final Report attracts the offences alleged against
the petitioner. There are sufficient materials to prove the
petitioner's culpability in the crime. The witnesses and
materials on record establish that the petitioner has
committed the offences. This Court may not embark
upon a mini trial and hold that the petitioner has not
committed the above offences. Hence, the Crl.M.C may
be dismissed.
7. The essence of the prosecution case is
that the petitioner had trespassed into the property of
the 3rd respondent and cut the trees standing in the
property, threatened the 3rd respondent's wife and
caused a loss of Rs.3775/- to the 3rd respondent.
CRL.MC NO. 959 OF 2022
2026:KER:26777
8. It is well-established that this Court has
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 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 the allegations in the first information report, the
complaint or final report prima facie do not constitute
the offences alleged 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
CRL.MC NO. 959 OF 2022
2026:KER:26777
consistently cautioned that High Courts, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code,
should not embark upon a "minitrial" or weigh the
sufficiency of evidence, which falls within the domain of
the Trial Court. The scope of enquiry is confined to
whether, on a plain reading of the FIR/complaint and
accompanying material, the ingredients of the alleged
offence are disclosed. (Read the decisions in Rajiv
Thapar and others v. Madal Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC
330] and HMT Watches Ltd. v. Abida M.A. and another
[(2015) 11 SCC 776]).
10. On an analysis of the allegations in the
FIR and Final Report, the materials on record and the
rival submissions made across the Bar, I am prima facie
satisfied that the allegations in the FIR and Final Report
do attract the offences alleged against the petitioner.
Thus, I am not satisfied that it is a fit case to exercise
inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the
CRL.MC NO. 959 OF 2022
2026:KER:26777
Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the
Crl.M.C, but by reserving the right of the petitioner to
raise all his contentions before the Trial Court, including
filing an application for discharge, provided the charge
has not been framed. If such application is filed, the
Trial Court is directed to consider the application and
decide the case, in accordance with the law,
untrammelled by any observation made in this order.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
DK
CRL.MC NO. 959 OF 2022
2026:KER:26777
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 959 OF 2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.595/2021 OF THE MANNAR POLICE
STATION, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO.2035/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE
HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-I, CHENGANNUR
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE PLAINT
IN O.S NO. 160/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE
HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT AT MAVELIKARA
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE PLAINT
IN O.S NO. 92/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE
HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT AT MAVELIKARA
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT ALONG
WITH THE PLAN IN O.S NO. 160/2021 ON THE
FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT AT
MAVELIKARA
