Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58330
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
PANNYAMKANDI PUTHIYAPURAYIL SIDDIQUE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 11366 OF 2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN, SHRI.PRAVEEN K.S.
For the Respondents: SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN, SHRI.PRAVEEN K.S.
For the Respondents: SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK
A single Criminal Miscellaneous Case cannot consolidate multiple independent complaints due to differing causes of action.
Headnote:The Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed to quash 80 independent complaints was not permissible as the complaints arose from different causes of action. The court found that multifarious reliefs could not be sought in a single application (Paragraph 1). The issues centered around the appropriateness of combining multiple complaints in one Crl.M.C (Paragraph 2). The decision concluded with the dismissal of the Crl.M.C. while allowing for the possibility of filing separate applications (Concluding Paragraph).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing to quash multiple independent complaints. (Para 1) |
| 2. issues of multifarious reliefs in a single crl.m.c. (Para 2) |
ORDER
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash 80 independent complaints pending before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kannur.
2. All the complaints arise out of independent causes of action and are of different crimes. Therefore, the relief sought for in the Crl.M.C. is multifarious in nature, and the same cannot be permitted by way of a single Crl.M.C. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but by reserving the right of the petitioner to file independent Crl.M.C.s in respect of each complaint.
