SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G.GIRISH, J
DR. HASEENA MUHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 2543 OF 2020 | CC NO.203 OF 2012



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI, SRI.M.SAJJAD
For the Respondents: SRI RENJIT GEORGE

A court may quash proceedings if earlier orders indicate no justification for the charges against an accused.

Headnote:This judgment addresses a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioner for alleged offenses under Sections 86(1) & 86(2) of the Prisoner’s Act, 2010. The Court found that prior rulings indicated a lack of justification for the original charges, emphasizing the need to prevent complaints lacking material support. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner. The petition stands allowed. The proceedings are quashed.

Table of Content
1. petition filed under section 482 to quash proceedings. (Para 1)
2. prior orders quashing similar charges justify termination of current prosecution. (Para 2)
3. court's findings led to granting relief to the petitioner by quashing proceedings. (Para 3)

O R D E R

The accused No.93 in C.C.No.203/2012 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , to quash the proceedings against her in the aforesaid case. The allegation against her is that she, along with 203 other accused, committed the offence under Sections 86(1) & 86(2) of the Prisoner’s Act, 2010 . The case arose out of a complaint preferred by the second respondent that the first accused therein, who was a former Minister now no more, used his mobile phone while remaining in judicial custody at Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The allegation against more than 200 accused arraigned in the aforesaid case is that they had communications with the aforesaid Minister through mobile phone, and that the first accused had used his mobile phone to receive such calls, while in judicial custody.

2. The case against the first accused and accused Nos.85 & 98 were quashed by this Court as per the orders passed on 04.01.2019 in Crl.M.C.Nos.1236, 1243 & 1571/2018. The observations in paragraph Nos.23 & 24 of the aforesaid order is extracted hereunder:

“23. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in issuing process to the petitioners.

24. This case reminds me of the saying that a little knowledge is more dangerous than little knowledge. The learned Magistrate should have dismissed the complaint in limine. The tendency to rush to the court with a complaint by persons who do not have any material with them to support the allegation should be nipped in the bud. Unfortunately, the learned Magistrate was more loyal than the king.”

3. In the light of the findings of this Court in the aforesaid order, it is highly necessary to terminate the prosecution proceedings against the present petitioner, since the learned Magistrate had initiated the aforesaid proceedings without any basis.

In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.93 in C.C.No.203/2012 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, are hereby quashed.

(Sd/-)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top