Kerala High Court
Sanjudas N.S vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:15317
CRL.MC NO. 9207 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9207 OF 2025
CRIME NO.118/2022 OF Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.458 OF 2022 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SANJUDAS N.S,
AGED 45 YEARS
AGED 45, S/O. NARAYANAN, T.C. 5/417, ROHINI BHAVAN,
INDIRA NAGAR, PERURKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695005
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ABHILASH A J
SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH
SHRI.CHRISTAPHER JOSE
SHRI.RISHI RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN
- 680555
2026:KER:15317
CRL.MC NO. 9207 OF 2025
2
3 VINI. P. VARGHESE ,
S/O. VARGHESE, PORATHUR HOUSE, WHITE FIELD LANE,
ADATT MARKET, ADATT VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551
SRI.M.P.PRASANATH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:15317
CRL.MC NO. 9207 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS,J.
====================
Crl. M.C.No. 9207 of 2025
------------------------------------ --
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.458 of
2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Kunnamkulam (‘Trial Court’, in short), which
has originated from Crime No.118 of 2022 registered by
the Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur, alleging the
commission of the offences punishable under Sections
341, 353, 283, 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution in the final report, in
a nutshell, is that:
On 09.02.2022, at around 11.00 hours, when the Deputy
Tahsildar and other officials of the Thrissur Taluk Office
went to the house of the petitioner for the purpose of
measuring the building to assess the luxury tax, as per the
orders of the Tahsildar, the petitioner verbally abused the
2026:KER:15317
CRL.MC NO. 9207 OF 20254
officials alleging that he was not given prior notice and
demanded them to leave his house. Accordingly, he
obstructed the officials from discharging their official
duties. Furthermore, the petitioner also blocked the car of
the officials with his car. He threatened them that he
would set fire to the car and struck the vehicle with his
hands. Thus, the petitioner has committed the above
offences.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
submits that, even if the allegations in the FIR and the
final report are taken on their face value, the same would
not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner.
There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s
culpability in the crime. The offence under Section 341 is
not attracted, as there is no material to prove that the
petitioner has wrongfully restrained the officials.
2026:KER:15317
CRL.MC NO. 9207 OF 2025
5
Likewise, the offence under Section 353 is not attracted,
since there is no allegation of any assault or criminal
force. Similarly, the offence under Section 283 is also not
attracted, because no obstruction or danger was caused to
the officials. Furthermore, the offences under Sections
294(b) and 506 are not attracted, because the obscene
words were not uttered in public and there was no threat
or intention to cause the alarm. Therefore, even if the
petitioner withstands the trial, it is not going to lead to his
conviction. Hence, the entire proceedings may be
quashed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposes
the Crl.M.C. He submits that there are specific overt acts
attributed against the petitioner, which proves his
culpability in the crime. The petitioner had prevented the
officials from discharging their official duties to measure
the building, to assess the luxury tax. The petitioner also
prevented the officials from leaving the premises by
2026:KER:15317
CRL.MC NO. 9207 OF 2025
6
obstructing their vehicle with the petitioner’s car. The
Investigating Officer has produced cogent materials along
with the final report and proposes to examine 17
witnesses to prove the prosecution case. Therefore, this
Court may not embark upon a mini trial and quash the
proceedings. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.
6. The essence of the prosecution case is that, when
the defacto complainant and other officials went to inspect
the petitioner’s building to assess the luxury tax, the
petitioner prevented them from discharging their duties
and also blocked them from leaving the premises. He also
threatened to set their car ablaze.
7. It is well settled that this Court has inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, which corresponds to Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash
criminal proceedings. However, such inherent power,
though expansive in nature, is not unbridled or unlimited.
2026:KER:15317
CRL.MC NO. 9207 OF 2025
7
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, even if allegations in the first
information report, final report or the complaint are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same
will not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case 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]).
On an overall consideration of the facts, the materials
on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar,
particularly taking note of the specific overt acts
attributed against the petitioner, which prima facie
2026:KER:15317
CRL.MC NO. 9207 OF 2025
8
attracts the offences alleged against him, I am not
satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent
powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. The
Crl.M.C. is devoid of any merit and consequently
dismissed. Nonetheless, it is upto the petitioner to raise all
his contentions before the Trial Court, including filing
application for discharge, provided the charge has not
been framed till date. If such application is filed, the Trial
Court is directed to consider and dispose of the
application, in accordance with law, untramelled by any
observation made in this order.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2026:KER:15317
CRL.MC NO. 9207 OF 2025
9
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 9207 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME
NO. 118/2022 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT
Annexure B THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
ALONG WITH WITNESS LIST AND STATEMENT IN
C.C. NO. 458/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KUNNAMKULAM IN CRIME NO. 118/2022 OF
PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
DISTRICT
Annexure C THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
ALONG WITH WITNESS LIST AND STATEMENT,
SEIZURE MAHAZZAR IN C.C. NO. 458/2022
PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMKULAM IN CRIME NO.
118/2022 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
