[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Nishad Puthenparambil Mohammed vs State Of Kerala on 30 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:28268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 2202 OF 2026
CRIME NO.184/2013 OF Fort Kochi Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 NISHAD PUTHENPARAMBIL MOHAMMED
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED MOIDEENUNNY 2/717,
PULLUPALAM ROAD,KUNNUMPURAM,
FORT KOCHI P.O.ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 NIYAS PADIPURACKAL MOHAMMED,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED PADIPURACKAL MOIDUNNY 2/717,
POONTHURUTHY BAVA LANE KUNNUMPURAM,
FORT KOCHI P.O. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
BY ADVS.
KUM.GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN
SMT.ARCHANA B.
SHRI.AJIN K. KURIAKOSE
SMT.SRUTHILAKSHMI SHAJI
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001
3 ANISH,
S/O ALIBAVA,CC-2/962, KOCHI,
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C. No.2202 of 2026 -:2:
2026:KER:28268
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.
184/2013 registered by the Fort Cochin Police Station,
Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 451, 323, 324, 294(b) and
506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioners have stated in the Criminal
Miscellaneous Case that, although Annexure A1 FIR was
registered on 02.03.2013, till date, the investigation in
the case has not been completed, and the final report has
not been laid. The inaction on the part of the
Investigating Officer has caused severe prejudice and
hardship to the petitioners. The petitioners' fundamental
right for the speedy disposal and trial, guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been
infringed. Hence, Annexure A1 FIR and all further
proceedings may be quashed.
Crl. M.C. No.2202 of 2026 -:3:
2026:KER:28268
3. The crux of the prosecution case is that;
On 28.02.2013, at around 22:45 hours, the accused
persons had wrongfully restrained the de facto
complainant and other victims, used obscene language
and caused hurt to the defacto complainant.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The Crl.M.C. case was filed on 10.03.2026 and was
called on 12.03.2026. This Court posted the case to
19.03.2026 for the learned Public Prosecutor to get
instructions from the Investigating Officer.
5. When the case was taken up for consideration on
23.03.2026, the learned Public Prosecutor sought further
time to get instructions. Accordingly, this Court posted
the case to 27.03.2026 as the last chance. On
27.03.2026, the learned Public Prosecutor again sought
for further time to get instructions from the Investigating
Officer. Accordingly, the case was posted to today
(30.03.2026).
Crl. M.C. No.2202 of 2026 -:4:
2026:KER:28268
6. Today, when the case was taken up for
consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor submits
that she has not received instructions from the
Investigating Officer.
7. In Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L
Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025 INSC 1339), the
Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held as
follows:
"19.Coming back to the present case, why the
investigation in this case took more than a decade to be
completed is lost on us. Apparently, it was found that the
licenses issued by the appellant were also issued to a
fictitious person even at the time when the order for
further investigation was taken. Out of the 16 accused
persons one person stood charge-sheeted in terms of the
first chargesheet and the remaining, excluding the
appellant and one Abhishek, were charge-sheeted by way
of the second chargesheet. When only the actions of the
appellant were subject matter of investigation by the time
permission was taken as above - 11 years is quite
obviously a timeline afflicted by delay. No reason is
forthcoming for this extended period either in the
chargesheet or at the instance of the Court having taken
cognizance of such chargesheet. In other words, the
appellant has had the cloud of a criminal investigation
hanging over him for all these years. The judgments
above referred to supra hold unequivocally that
investigation is covered under the right to speedy trial
and it is also held therein, that violation of this right can
strike at the root of the investigation itself, leading it to
be quashed. At the same time, it must be said that
timelines cannot be set in stone for an investigation to be
completed nor can outer limit be prescribed within which
necessarily, an investigation must be drawn to a close.
This is evidenced by the fact that further investigation or
rather permission therefor, can be granted even after
Crl. M.C. No.2202 of 2026 -:5:
2026:KER:28268
commencement of trial. [See: Rampal Gautam v The
State, Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) 7968 of 2016] Where
though, Article 21 would be impacted would be a situation
where, like in the present matter, no reason justifiable in
nature, can be understood from record for the
investigation having taken a large amount of time. The
accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this
threat of continuing investigation and eventual trial
proceedings bearing over their everyday existence."
8. Taking into consideration the fact that Annexure
A1 FIR was registered on 02.03.2013, which is now more
than 13 years, the investigation in the case is not
completed and the final report has not been filed, I am of
the definite view that the principles laid down in the
afore-cited decision apply on all fours to the facts of the
present case. The continuation of the investigation of the
present crime is a sheer abuse of the process of law and
infringes the petitioners' fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, I am
convinced this is a fit case to exercise the inherent
powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and to quash the entire
criminal proceedings as against the petitioners.
Crl. M.C. No.2202 of 2026 -:6:
2026:KER:28268
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the
Crl.M.C., by quashing Annexure A1 FIR and further
proceedings in Crime No. 184/2013 of the Fort Cochin
Police Station, as against the petitioners.
Sd/-
mtk C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
Crl. M.C. No.2202 of 2026 -:7:
2026:KER:28268
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 2202 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO: 184 /2013 DATED 02.03.2013 OF FORT
KOCHI POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME
NO: 184 /2013 DATED 02.03.2013 OF FORT
KOCHI POLICE STATION
Annexure A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COURT DATED
02.03.2013
Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED FROM
THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE , COCHIN
DATED 13.03.2024
