Kerala High Court
Nisha @ Nisha vs @ Nisha Vijesh, Versus Mrs.Reena on 9 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025 1 2026:KER:11431
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1722/2025 OF Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
NISHA @ NISHA V S@ NISHA VIJESH,
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O VIJESH,VALIYA VEETTIL HOUSE,
PATTUVAM.P.O,TALIPARAMBA (VIA),KANNUR, KERALA, PIN -
670143
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SALIM KUMAR A.
SHRI.AKHIL J.K.
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE :
1 MRS.REENA,
W/O GOURAV,PROPRIETOR THE VISA MANSION, 716- AGARWAL,
B2B CENTRE,D-MONTE LANE, ABOVE SILVER OAK
RESTAURANT,MALAD (W), MUMBAI, PIN - 400064
2 MR. KUSHANK,
MANAGER,THE VISA MANSION, 716- AGARWAL, B2B CENTRE,D-
MONTE LANE,ABOVE SILVER OAK RESTAURANT,MALAD (W),
MUMBAI, PIN - 400064
3 MRS. MERIN,
STUDENT COUNSELLOR,THE VISA MANSION,717- AGARWAL, B2B
CENTRE,D-MONTE LANE,ABOVE SILVER OAK RESTAURANT, MALAD
(W),MUMBAI, PIN - 400064
4 MR. GOURAV,
HUSBAND OF MRS.REENA 1ST RESPONDENT,VISA FACILITATING
AGENT,THE VISA MANSION,716- AGARWAL, B2B CENTRE, D-
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025 2 2026:KER:11431
MONTE LANE,ABOVE SILVER OAK RESTAURANT,MALAD
(W),MUMBAI, PIN - 400064
5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ALUVA POLICE STATION,SUB JAIL ROAD,PERIYAR NAGAR,ALUVA
KERALA, PIN - 683101
6 ABHIJITH RADHAKRISHNAN,
S/O RADHA KRISHNAN,KALAPURAYIL,ATHANI,ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT,KERALA, PIN - 683585
7 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025 3 2026:KER:11431
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.1722/2025 registered by the Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ('BNS', in short).
2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention to make unlawful gain for themselves and to cause unlawful loss to the defacto complainant, assured the defacto complainant that they would arrange a work visa for him in Lithuania. Accordingly, they received Rs.1,06,000/-, by bank transfer from the defacto complainant's father's account, but failed to obtain the visa and refused to return the money. The 1 st accused is the owner of M/s. Migrit Overseas Consultants LLP and the accused 2 and 3 are its employees. Thus, the accused persons have committed the above offences.
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025 4 2026:KER:11431
3. The Investigating Officer has filed a report, inter alia, contending that, nearly 200 victims have approached the Investigating Officer, and 17 crimes have been registered against the petitioner for committing identical offences. Accordingly to the Investigating Officer, the accused Nos. 1 to 3, with an intention to obtain unlawful gain for themselves and to cause unlawful loss to the defacto complainant, promised to arrange a work visa for the defacto complainant in Lithuania. Accordingly, they demanded and obtained Rs.1,06,000/-, which was bank transferred to the bank account of M/s Migrit Overseas Consultants LLP, which is operated by the 1 st accused. Although, the 1st accused received the money and promised to provide the visa, she failed to secure the visa and refused to return the money. The details of the victims in the crime have been provided in the said statement.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner very strenuously argues that, even if the allegations in Annexure A6 FIR and Annexure A7 FI statement are taken on their face CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025 5 2026:KER:11431 value, the same would not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. In fact the petitioner has been successfully conducting the overseas recruitment agency for many years and has sent several persons abroad. The petitioner was cheated by a Overseas Company in Bombay, to whom the petitioner had sent Rs.86,75,000/-, in order to sent persons abroad. However, the said Overseas Company has cheated the petitioner. Although the petitioner has submitted Annexure A2 complaint before the Bombay Police, no action has been taken on the same. Consequently, the petitioner had submitted Annexure A3 complaint before the DySP, Aluva who in turn has registered Annexure A4 FIR against the accused persons in Bombay. The allegations in Annexure A6 FIR would clearly reveal that the dispute is purely civil in nature. There is no element of cheating made out. The petitioner does not have the mens rea to cheat the defacto complainant. The allegation that the petitioner has criminal antecedent is also incorrect. It is after the petitioner was cheated by the Bombay recruitment agency that the petitioner had financial difficulties. Therefore, the Crl.M.C may be CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025 6 2026:KER:11431 allowed and Annexure A6 FIR may be quashed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the Crl.M.C. She reiterates the contentions in the report filed by the Investigating Officer. She submits that the investigation is only at nascent stage. The allegations in the FIR and FIS , if taken on their face value, would attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court may not embark upon a mini trial and quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.
7. The crux of the prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that she was running a recruitment agency named Migrit Overseas Consultants LLP. She had induced the defacto complainant to pay Rs.1,06,000/- on the assurance of securing an employment visa for him to go to Lithuania. Although, she received the money, she failed to secure the employment and refused to return the money to the defacto complainant
8. It is well-settled that this Court has broad plenary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which corresponds to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash criminal proceedings.
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025 7 2026:KER:11431 However, such inherent power, though expansive in nature, is not unbridled or unlimited. They are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and within the parameters delineated by judicial precedents. One of the elementary principles to quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in the first information report or the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same will not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (Read the decisions in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others [(2023) 18 SCC 399], Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2022) 16 SCC 117] and Monica Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [(2008) 8 SCC 781]).
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also consistently cautioned that High Courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, should not embark upon a "minitrial" or weigh the sufficiency of evidence, which falls within the domain of the Trial Court. The scope of enquiry is confined to whether, on a plain reading of the FIR/complaint CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025 8 2026:KER:11431 and accompanying material, the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. (Read the decisions in Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madal Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330] and HMT Watches Ltd. v. Abida M.A. and another [(2015) 11 SCC 776]).
10. In Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) [2025 KHC 6914], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code is extraordinary, but must be exercised sparingly. It is the duty of the High Court to intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and criminal colour has been artificially given to it. Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial.
11. After analysing the allegations in Annexure A6 FIR and Annexure A7 FI statement, I prima facie find that the offences alleged against the petitioner stand attracted because she received Rs.1,06,000/- from the defacto complainant on the assurance of securing him a job visa in Lithuania, which CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025 9 2026:KER:11431 she has not done. Moreover, I find that there are 17 cases registered against the petitioner for committing similar offences, with over two hundred victims. Thus, I am not satisfied that this is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS and quash the FIR.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the Crl.M.C., but by reserving the right of the petitioner to raise all her contentions before the Trial Court, including filing an application for discharge, provided the charge has not been framed. If such application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose the same, untrammelled by any observations made in this order.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE SCB/09.02.26.
CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025 10 2026:KER:11431 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10813 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF A LIST OF CANDIDATES ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY RECRUITED FROM THE AGENCY Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09.07.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE MALAD WEST POLICE STATION IN MUMBAI Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.12.2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE DY.S.P ALUWA Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR CRIME NO. 1096/2023 DATED 23.09.2023 REGISTERED AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF REFUND ISSUED FROM THE RECRUITMENT AGENCY TO PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR CRIME NO. 1722/2025 DATED 05.08.2025 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT ALUWA POLICE STATION BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Annexure A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME NO 1722/2025 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION DATED 05.08.2025