Court holds allegations against accused Nos. 2 to 7 vague and unsupported, but finds prima facie case against accused No. 1 under Sections 406 and 498A IPC; exercises inherent power under BNSS 2023 to quash criminal proceedings partially.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 9, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Jobin Sebastian, partially quashed the criminal proceedings against six accused persons in a domestic cruelty and misappropriation case, while allowing the trial to continue against the primary accused, the husband.
The case arose out of Crime No. 1124 of 2024 registered at Tellicherry Police Station, Kannur City, involving allegations under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 34 IPC, relating to an incident of alleged mental and physical cruelty and misappropriation of gold ornaments following the marriage of the complainant with the first accused in 2007.
The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 7-filed a petition under Section 528 of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS") seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery.
During the proceedings, the court scrutinized the allegations against all accused. While the first accused was specifically alleged to have misappropriated gold ornaments and subjected the complainant to cruelty, the allegations against the other six accused were found to be vague, general, and omnibus, lacking any specific overt acts or material evidence.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the BNSS empowers the High Court with inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process or to secure the ends of justice. However, such power is to be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence.
The court emphasized that for Section 498A IPC to apply, the cruelty must be either wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury or harassment with a view to coercing unlawful demands. The court found that the allegations against accused Nos. 2 to 7 failed to meet this threshold and did not prima facie constitute offences under Sections 406 or 498A IPC. Therefore, continuing proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Conversely, the allegations against accused No. 1 were found to be specific and disclosed a prima facie case warranting continuation of the criminal trial. The court clarified that issues concerning the truthfulness or evidentiary value of allegations were to be adjudicated by the trial court and not at the quashing stage.
Accordingly, the court quashed all further proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 7 while permitting the trial against accused No. 1 to proceed in accordance with law.
This judgment underscores the careful exercise of the High Court's power under the BNSS 2023 to weed out frivolous or unsubstantiated criminal proceedings while ensuring that genuine cases proceed to trial.
Bottom Line:
Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Allegations against accused Nos. 2 to 7 were vague, general, and omnibus in nature, lacking specific overt acts or supporting material to constitute offences under Sections 406 and 498A IPC - Proceedings against them quashed. However, allegations against accused No. 1 were specific and disclosed a prima facie case, warranting continuation of proceedings against him.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 406, 498A, 34
Firoz Kunnumal v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2977642
