[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abdul Hameed vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO.4360 OF 2022
1
2026:KER:27131
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. 4360 OF 2022
CRIME NO.838/2012 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
SC NO.51 OF 2013 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT COURT, NEDUMANGAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ABDUL HAMEED
AGED 51 YEARS
SON OF HAMEED, CHITTETHUKUDI HOUSE, IRAMALLOOR KARA,
KOTHAMANGALAM, IRAMALLOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 686691
BY ADV SHRI.P.V.ELIAS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.4360 OF 2022
2
2026:KER:27131
ORDER
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2026
The petitioner is the accused in SC No.51/2013 on
the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangad
('Trial Court' in short) which has originated from Crime
No.838/2012 registered by the Nedumangad Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram alleging the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 279, 332, 294 (b) and
308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The petitioner has filed this Criminal
Miscellaneous Case to quash the Final Report on the
assertion that, even if the allegations in the Final Report
are taken on the face value, the same would not attract the
offences alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, the
entire proceedings as against the petitioner may be
quashed.
CRL.MC NO.4360 OF 2022
2026:KER:27131
3. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on
12.08.2012, at around 9:35 hours, the accused (petitioner)
had driven a bus bearing No.RT992 of the Vithura KSRTC
Depot by taking passengers from Nedumangad to Palayam.
The accused drew the bus in a rash and negligent manner
at over speed. On seeing the vehicle, the de facto
complainant attempted to stop the vehicle. However, the
accused without obeying the orders of the de facto
complainant, shouted at him in obscene language and hit
the vehicle against the de facto complainant's right
shoulder. Thus, the accused has committed the above
offences.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the allegations in the Final Report do not attract the
offences alleged against the petitioner. The Final Report
has been filed only to harass the petitioner. Annexure-2
wound certificate would show that the de facto
CRL.MC NO.4360 OF 2022
2026:KER:27131
complainant has not suffered any injuries. Therefore, the
entire proceedings may be quashed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes
the Crl.M.C. He submits that the allegations in the Final
Report clearly attract the offences against the petitioner.
Moreover, the contentions that have been raised in the
Crl.M.C are all matters that are to be decided after trial.
Likewise, there is a non-bailable warrant issued against
the petitioner, which has led to the protraction of the case.
The petitioner's sole intention is to evade the process of
law. This Court may not embark upon a minitrial and
quash the proceedings. Hence the Cri.M.C.may be
dismissed.
7. The essence of the prosecution case is that the
petitioner drew a KSRTC Bus at high speed and did not
stop the vehicle as instructed by the de facto complainant.
Instead, he hit the vehicle on the de facto complainant,
who suffered hurt.
8. It is well-established that this Court has
CRL.MC NO.4360 OF 2022
2026:KER:27131
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, final report or complaint do not
prima facie attract any offence. (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
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
CRL.MC NO.4360 OF 2022
2026:KER:27131
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. After carefully analysing the allegations in
Annexure-1 Final Report, I am satisfied that if the
allegations in the Final Report are taken on the face value,
the same would attract the offences alleged against the
petitioner. Moreover, the prosecution has cited seven
witnesses to prove their case. Annexure-2 wound
certificate also prima facie substantiates that the de facto
complainant has suffered injuries. Thus, I am satisfied that
this is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Moreover, I also find that a non-bailable
warrant is issued against the petitioner.
CRL.MC NO.4360 OF 2022
2026:KER:27131
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. The
Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to
the Trial Court, who in turn is directed to consider and
dispose the above case, in accordance with the law, as
expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
MJL
CRL.MC NO.4360 OF 2022
2026:KER:27131
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 4360 OF 2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN S.C. NO.
51/2013 ON THE FILE OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS
COURT, NEDUMANGAD.
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE OF DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT DATED 12/8/2012 ISSUED FROM
TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, NEDUMANGAD.
