Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11932
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
MURALEEDHARAN NAMBIAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 7683 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.736/2011 | CC NO.249 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.P.V.ANOOP, SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP, SHRI.K C MOHAMED RASHID, SHRI.DENNISE JACOB SAVY, SHRI.ABIN BENNY
For the Respondents: SMT.SEETHA S, SR.PP
The doctrine of res-judicata bars repetition of litigation where prior findings exist, allowing petitioners rights to raise contentions in the Trial Court.
Headnote:This case examines the sustainability of a supplemental Final Report in relation to offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners, accused in the Trial Court, sought to quash the criminal proceedings against them. The Court noted that prior findings on split charges resulted in res-judicata, preventing the entertainability of the current application. Ultimately, the petitioners were permitted to present their case before the Trial Court, leading to a dismissal of their request.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of the case and the nature of the petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the sustainability of previous litigations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's directions on past cases influencing current litigation. (Para 5) |
| 4. final decision of the court regarding the petition. (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.249/2017 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.2678/2018 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/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
