Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11928
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
MURALEEDHARAN NAMBIAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 7591 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.V.ANOOP, PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP, K C MOHAMED RASHID, DENNISE JACOB SAVY
For the Respondents: SMT.SEETHA S
Res-judicata prevents re-litigation of issues already settled in prior judgments; petitioners can raise contentions before the Trial Court.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petitioners seek to quash the supplementary Final Report in respect of Crime No.736/2011 under Sections 420, 406, and 120B r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Facts of the Case: The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 2, contest the legal validity of the filing, asserting it is unsustainable, and previous litigation regarding the charges is relevant. Findings of the Court: The court found that earlier judgments operate as res-judicata, suggesting the issues raised cannot be entertained again.
Issues: The court frames whether the Crl.M.C is maintainable circumventing prior orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that findings from Annexure C regarding joint trial and the scope for raising contentions must be honored, thus the Crl.M.C is dismissed.
Result: I dismiss the Crl.M.C, but by reserving the right of the petitioners to raise all the contentions before the Trial Court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of supplementary final report under ipc. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. previous litigation frames current case outcome. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. res-judicata applied to the joint trial. (Para 5) |
| 4. crl.m.c dismissed with rights reserved for petitioners. (Para 6) |
O R D E R
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2026 The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.250/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has originated from Crime No.736/2011 registered by the Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120B r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. The petitioners have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case on the assertion that the filing of the supplemental Final Report is not sustainable in law.
Hence, the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that this is the second round of litigation with respect to the crime. The petitioners had earlier filed Crl.M.C No.2680/2018 before this Court challenging the filing of split charges in the crime. However, by Annexure C order, this Court ordered joint trial of the cases. It is suppressing these facts that the present Crl.M.C is filed. The findings in Annexure C order operate as res-judicata. Therefore, this Court may not entertain this Crl.M.C.
5. By Annexure C order, this Court dismissed the Crl.M.C filed by the petitioners and has directed the Trial Court to consider a joint trial of all the cases against the petitioners, if feasible and dispose of the cases in accordance with law, at any rate within four months from
02.07.2024.
6. In light of the findings in Annexure C order, I am not inclined to entertain the Crl.M.C. Instead, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all their contentions before the Trial Court.
Resultantly, I dismiss the Crl.M.C, but by reserving the right of the petitioners to raise all the contentions before the Trial Court.
Sd/-
