Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11929
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
MURALEEDHARAN NAMBIAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 7630 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.736/2011 | CC NO.246 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.P.V.ANOOP, SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP, SHRI.K C MOHAMED RASHID, SHRI.DENNISE JACOB SAVY
For the Respondents: SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, SR.PP
Legal proceedings already decided by previous court order cannot be reopened, reinforcing res-judicata principles.
Headnote:The petitioners are accused in a case arising from Crime No.736/2011, involving allegations under IPC Sections 420, 406, and 120B. This application seeks to quash the supplemental Final Report, which the court determines cannot be entertained due to previous rulings establishing res-judicata. The petitioners were directed to bring their contentions before the Trial Court instead. Resultantly, the court dismisses the Criminal Miscellaneous Case while reserving the petitioners' right to raise their contentions in the trial.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused alleged of ipc offences seek to quash proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. previous judicial findings prevent reopening cases. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. dismissal of application reserves petitioners' rights. (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.246/2017 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 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.2681/2018 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/-
