The court emphasized the limited scope of inquiry under Section 482 of the CrPC, maintaining that inherent powers should not interfere with the trial court's jurisdiction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 8TH MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 9522 OF 2022 CRIME NO.1225/2016 OF Ernakulam South Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.2139 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O),ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED :

SOLOMON PHILIP AGED 43 YEARS S/O ABRAHAM PHILIP, 58-C, THAZHAYIL (H), AMMANKOVIL ROAD, EDAPILLY, ERNAKULAM – 682024. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT THAZHAYIL (H), 20/ SANTHOSH NAGAR, MUTTADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695025 BY ADVS.

SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN SRI.ROY JOSEPH SMT.ANIES MATHEW SMT.ANJANA RAM SHRI.NIRMAL KURIEN EAPEN RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT :

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PIN - 682015

3 MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK, PERUMANOOR BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH, PIN - 682015 BY ADVS.

SHRI.DINOOP P.D.

SRI.ELDHO K.MATHEW SHRI.BAIJU JOHN SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------

CRL.MC NO. 9522 OF 2022 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in C.C.No.2139/2019 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (EO), Ernakulam, which has originated from Crime No.1225/2016 registered by the Ernakulam Town South Police Station, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The petitioner, who is the 1^st accused in the above crime, had availed a vehicle loan of Rs.18,70,000/- on 10.03.2015, from the 3^rd respondent bank by executing necessary loan documents and undertaking to repay the loan amount with interest in 84 equated monthly installments. Subsequent to the purchase, the car was registered with the Ernakulam Regional Transport Office. It is alleged that, the petitioner, in violation of the covenants in the agreement, had removed the vehicle to a remote place without the consent of the 3^rd respondent. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

3. Heard.

4. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner had availed financial assistance from the 3^rd respondent bank to purchase a car. Subsequently, he defaulted the payment of the equated monthly installments and removed the car outside the jurisdiction of the 3^rd respondent, to avoid recovery proceedings.

5. It is well-established that this Court has broad plenary 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. 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 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] ).

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also consistently cautioned