High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-07-31Crl.M.C. stands dismissed; the petition for qua...

Jamees P.K. and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 567 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Babu
Judgment Date: 2023-07-31
Court Decision / Holding: The Crl.M.C. stands dismissed. The petition for quashing is rejected; the proceedings in CC 224/2022 shall continue, and the investigating agency will proceed with the trial.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.C. stands dismissed; the petition for quashing is denied; trial to proceed in CC 224/2022.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jamees P.K.
Soja Majeed
Jipsa Majeed
Jiyas P.K.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
The Station House Officer, Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode District
Anoosha K.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shajian Joseph
• Surumi Shakeel

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
• Adv. for Nadakkavu Police Station (not named in document)
• Adv. for Anoosha K. (not named in document)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, sitting in a Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.M.C. No. 567 of 2023) before Justice K. Babu, deals with a petition to quash CC 224/2022 arising from Nadakkavu Police Station Crime No. 144/2022. The four petitioners—Jamees P.K., Soja Majeed, Jipsa Majeed, and Jiyas P.K.—are accused of offences under IPC sections 323 (hurt), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 498-A (cruelty to a woman by husband or relative), and 506 read with 34 IPC. The respondent No.3 (Ani?) alleges that 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments were misappropriated by the petitioners, and that she faced mental and physical ill‑treatment and dowry demands, culminating in her leaving the matrimonial home, and later unlawful entry into her family residence where threats and hurt were allegedly caused. Annexure-A1 is the private complaint; Annexure-A2 is the FIR; Annexure-A3 is the final report. The core issue is whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the pre-trial stage. The Court reiterates that such powers should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases, and only on the basis of the allegations in the complaint (not on merits). Citing decisions including Swapan Kumar Guha, Pratibha Rani, State v. O.C. Kuttan, OPSharma, Rashmi Kumar, Neeharika Infrastructure, and Mahendra KC, the Court holds that the materials reveal cognizable offences and that the relief cannot be granted; hence the petition is dismissed and trial will proceed in CC 224/2022.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 323 IPCSection 406 IPCSection 498-A IPCSection 506 r/w Section 34 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases
High Court should not sift or weigh the materials at the threshold
The Court should proceed on the basis of the allegations in the complaint and accompanying documents
Merits of the case are to be tested during trial rather than at the quashing stage

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners sought to quash CC 224/2022 under the inherent powers of this Court (Section 482 Cr.P.C.). They argued that the allegations—though serious—do not, on their face, establish a cognizable offence and that continuing proceedings would amount to premature inquiry and harassment. They urged adherence to the long-settled principle that the High Court should not embark on a scrutiny of the credibility, reliability, or genuineness of the allegations at the pre-trial stage and that the court should not weigh the evidence. Reliance was placed on authoritative decisions emphasizing restraint in misusing jurisdiction and allowing law to take its course, with the evaluation of the allegations left for trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued against quashing, asserting that the allegations disclose offences under IPC Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 r/w 34 and that the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial. They highlighted that the court, at the stage of 482 Cr.P.C., must be cautious to avoid miscarriages of justice by prematurely halting the case, and that the decisions of the Supreme Court permit quashing only when no cognizable offence is disclosed or when continuing would thwart justice. They urged the court to test the allegations during trial rather than suo motu disallow the proceedings at the pre-trial stage.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha	(1982) 1 SCC 561	Positive	Cited to support the principle that the power to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, based on allegations, and not by weighing evidence at the pre-trial stage.
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar	(1985) 2 SCC 370	Positive	Used to reinforce the standard that the High Court must rely on the allegations and accompanying documents when considering quashing under 482 Cr.P.C.
State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan	(1999) 2 SCC 651	Positive	Supports the view that the court cannot sift material and weigh it at the threshold while considering quashing.
State of U.P v. O.P.Sharma	(1996) 7 SCC 705	Positive	Three-judge bench endorses restraint in interference at the threshold and permits law to take its course.
Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada	(1997) 2 SCC 397	Positive	Affirms cautious exercise of inherent power under 482 Cr.P.C and balance of justice.
M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and others	(AIR 2021 SC 1918)	Positive	Clarifies that when a prayer to quash FIR is made, the court should consider whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, not merits.
Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.	(AIR 2021 SC 5711)	Positive	Fortifies Neeharika principle, reinforcing threshold-limited review.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jamees P.K. and others v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 567 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 224/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -IV,KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** - `1 JAMEES P.K AGED 35 YEARS THANAS, CHEVAYUR KOZHIKODU DISTRICT,, PIN - 673012` - `2 SOJA MAJEED AGED 53 YEARS, THANAS, CHEVAYUR KOZHIKODU DISTRICT,, PIN - 673012` - `3 JIPSA MAJEED, AGED 32 YEARS , THANAS, CHEVAYUR KOZHIKODU DISTRICT,, PIN - 673012` - `4 JIYAS P.K, AGED 35 YEARS, THANAS, CHEVAYUR KOZHIKODU DISTRICT,, PIN - 673012 BY ADVS. SHAIJAN JOSEPH SURUMI SHAKEEL` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINT:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` - `2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673011` - `3 ANOOSHA K, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O UNNIYALI, SHANTHI (H), KACHERI AMSHAM, KARAPARMBA DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673010 BY ADVS.` ``` CRL.MC NO. 567 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [347 x 52] intentionally omitted <==** ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMIS- SION ON 31.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 567 OF 2023 ``` ..3.. ## **K.BABU, J** . -------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.567 of 2023 --------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of July, 2023 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are the accused in C.C No.224/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode, which arose from Crime No.144 of 2022 of Nadakkavu Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 are husband and wife. Petitioner No.2 is the mother of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.3 is the sister of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.4 is the brother of Petitioner No.2. 4. The prosecution case is that the petitioners ``` CRL.MC NO. 567 OF 2023 ``` ..4.. misappropriated 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments that belonged to respondent No.3 and that she was mentally and physically ill-treated on various occasions. 5. Based on the complaint of respondent No.3, Annexure-A2 FIR was registered, and the Police conducted the investigation and submitted final report alleging the offences mentioned above. 6. Annexure-A1 is the complaint filed by respondent No.3 before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 7. In Annexure-A1 complaint, respondent No.3 alleged the following:- The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 was solemnized on 17.12.2017. Respondent No.3 had 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Within months after the marriage, petitioners appropriated those gold ornaments, neglecting the resistance of respondent No.3 and utilized them for ``` CRL.MC NO. 567 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** clearing their debts. When respondent No.3 raised complaints regarding the misappropriation of her gold ornaments, petitioners mentally ill-treated her, demanding more money as dowry. When the ill-treatment at the marital home aggravated, respondent No.3 was compelled to leave the house on 12.05.2019. After that, consequent to the intervention of some mediators, on 30.05.2021, respondent No.3 joined the petitioners. But there was no change in the behavior of petitioners towards respondent No.3. Petitioners continued to ill-treat her, demanding more money and gold ornaments. On 24.10.2021, respondent No.3 left the company of petitioners as she found it intolerable to live at the matrimonial home. After that, she resided with her parents. On 16.01.2022, petitioners forcefully entered the family house of respondent No.3. Petitioner No.1 voluntarily caused hurt to her. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 ``` CRL.MC NO. 567 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** also caused hurt to her. They kicked respondent No.3. The petitioners threatened respondent No.3 with imminent injury. 8. There are specific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint. The learned Public Prosecutor made available the case diary, which would show that the witnesses cited by the prosecution also gave statements supporting the allegations contained in the complaint. 9. It is settled by a long course of decisions of the Apex Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has been further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations ``` CRL.MC NO. 567 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** {Vide: **State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha** [(1982) 1 SCC 561], **Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar** [(1985) 2 SCC 370]}. 10. In **State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan** [(1999) 2 SCC 651], the Apex Court held that while exercising the power, it is not possible for the Court to sift the materials or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other. In **State of U.P v. O.P.Sharma** [(1996) 7 SCC 705] a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court observed that the High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be, and allow the law to take its own course. This view was reiterated by another Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in **Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada** [(1997) 2 SCC 397], wherein the Apex Court held ``` CRL.MC NO. 567 OF 2023 ``` ..8.. that such power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised only when the Court is of the opinion that otherwise there will be gross miscarriage of justice. It is trite that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised with circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases and it was not justified for this Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the Final report or the complaint. A finding on the veracity of a material relied on by the prosecution in a case where the allegations levelled by the prosecution disclose a cognizable offence, is not a consideration for the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in **Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.** (AIR 2021 SC 5711). 11. While dealing with the power under Section ``` CRL.MC NO. 567 OF 2023 ``` ..9.. 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings the Apex Court in **M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and others** (AIR 2021 SC 1918) concluded that when a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged Accused and the court when it exercises the power Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/ police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. In the present case, the materials placed before the Court reveal allegations to attract the offences alleged. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in Annexure-A2 F.I.R and Annexure-A3 Final Report is a matter to be tested during the course of the ``` CRL.MC NO. 567 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [26 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## trial. The Crl.M.C, therefore, stands dismissed. Sd/- **K.BABU, JUDGE** kkj ``` CRL.MC NO. 567 OF 2023 ``` ..11.. ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 567/2023`** |`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`|`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`| |---|---| |`Annexure A1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT`| ||`DATED 04/02/2022 FILED BY THE 3RD RE-`| ||`SPONDENT`| |`Annexure A2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.`| ||`144/2022 OF NADAKAVU POLICE STATION`| |`Annexure A3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME`| ||`NO. 144/2022 OF NADAKAVU POLICE STA-`| ||`TION`| |`Annexure A4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| ||`19/05/2022 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 790/2022 OF`| ||`THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE`| |`Annexure A5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE MAP TIME LINE`| |`Annexure A6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE MINI STATEMENT OF A/C`| ||`NO. 00000040230499575`| |`Annexure A7`|`TRUE COPY OF CHAT LIST BETWEEN 1ST PE-`| ||`TITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT`| |`Annexure A8`|`PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE HAPPY MOMENTS`| ||`SHARED BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND`| ||`THE PETITIONERS IN THE 1ST PETI-`| ||`TIONER'S HOUSE`| |`Annexure A9`|`TRUE COPY OF QR CODE (AUDIO/VIDEO)`| ||`PERTAINING TO THE ALLEGED INCIDENT ON`| ||`16-01-2022 IN THE CHARGESHEET`|