W.P.(C) No.12243 of 2025: K Premjith v. State of Kerala and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C. S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2025-04-01
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is disposed of in terms that Ext.P3 is quashed. The petitioner shall file an Annexure-I form for Involvement in Offences (NIO) certificate within one week. If submitted, the competent authority shall issue the NIO certificate in Annexure-II format, including the details of the crime and offences, within two weeks of receipt.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of with directions to quash Ext.P3; permit Annexure-I filing within one week; issue Annexure-II NIO certificate within two weeks after receipt of the application; certificate to include details of the crime.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- K Premjith
Respondents
- State of Kerala
- State Police Chief
- Assistant Commissioner of Police Thalassery
- Station House Officer, Kuthupparamba Police Station
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Rajesh Vijayendran
- • Asok Chacko Thomas
- • Priyanka Gopi
- • Aparna Shaji
- • Ibrahim Cherupully Abdul Salam
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt Vidya KuriaKose
Case Synopsis & Summary
The writ petition by K Premjith, an ex-serviceman, seeks a Non-Involvement in Offences (NIO) certificate to facilitate employment after facing an FIR under IPC Section 498A. The petitioner’s application for an NIO certificate was rejected (Ext.P3) on the ground of pendency of the FIR, though the investigation was complete and the case had progressed to CC 178/2024. The Kerala High Court holds that Section 59 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 empowers the District Police Chief or SHOs to issue a certificate stating non-involvement after proper enquiry and fixed charges. The court cites Sasikumar v. State of Kerala (2023 KHC 254), which held that a clearance certificate need not be refused merely due to pendency of a criminal case, given delays and the presumption of innocence. It also cites Rajendraprasad. T.V v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep (2023 KHC OnLine 10443), recognizing that a certificate showing involvement in only one crime can be issued. Additionally, a Circular No.3/2025/PHQ dated 9.1.2025, issued by the State Police Chief, is placed before the Court. The petitioner, who is an accused in Crime No. 636/2023, is entitled to an NIO certificate in Annexure-II format including the details of the crime. The petition is disposed with directions to quash Ext.P3, allow Annexure-I filing within a week, and issue Annexure-II within two weeks of receipt of the application.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Res integra
- Presumption of innocence
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the NIO certificate is essential for securing employment and that pendency of the FIR should not automatically bar the issuance of a certificate, especially where investigation has concluded and the case is in a stage where a certificate is required for job prospects. The petitioner relies on Kerala High Court jurisprudence that pendency alone should not nullify qualification for certification; seeks Annexure-I/NIO process and Annexure-II certificate with details.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that the FIR (Ext.P1) is registered and the investigation led to a final report; certificate issuance must reflect the fact of the crime. They rely on the procedural framework under the Kerala Police Act and contend that while a police clearance certificate is permissible, care must be taken to reflect the involvement in crimes. They also reference the need for a uniform procedure, as reflected in the Circular No.3/2025/PHQ.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sasikumar v. State of Kerala | 2023 KHC 254 | Positive | Held that clearance certificates should not be denied solely due to pendency of criminal cases, considering delays and the presumption of innocence. |
| Rajendraprasad. T.V v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep | 2023 KHC OnLine 10443 | Positive | Held that a certificate showing involvement in only one crime may be issued; supports a nuanced disclosure in NIO certificates. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 W.P.(C) No.12243 of 2025: K Premjith v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.