Kerala High Court
Davies vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:95215
CRL.MC NO. 391 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
CRL.MC NO. 391 OF 2021
CRIME NO.699/2019 OF Ollur Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.505 OF 2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
DAVIES
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, KATTUKARAN HOUSE, COMPANYPADY DESOM,
OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA.
2 RAPPAI,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.DEVASSY, KONNIKKARA HOUSE, COMPANYPADY DESOM,
OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 306.
BY ADV SHRI.K.I.SAGEER
2025:KER:95215
CRL.MC NO. 391 OF 2021
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:95215
CRL.MC NO. 391 OF 2021
3
C.S.DIAS,J.
====================
Crl. M.C.No.391 of 2021
------------------------------------ --
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.505 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thrissur (Trial Court), which originates from Crime No.699 of 2019 registered by the Ollur Police Station, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 120(l) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 ('Act', in short).
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on 12.02.2019, at around 7.00 a.m., the petitioner attempted to make his dog bite the 2nd respondent, due to his animosity against the 2nd respondent for filing a case against him.
2025:KER:95215 CRL.MC NO. 391 OF 2021 4
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegations in Annexure-1 FIR and Annexure-2 final report are taken on their face value, the same will not attract the offence under Section 120(l) of the Act. The 2nd respondent has filed Annexure-1 FIR only to wreak vengeance on the petitioner. In fact, the 2 nd respondent, on two earlier occasions, had got Annexures 3 and 4 FIRs. registered against the petitioner with identical allegations, which the police referred as a mistake of fact. The present crime is registered only to see that the bail granted to the petitioner in the earlier crimes are cancelled, and the petitioner is incarcerated. The allegations in Annexures 1 and 2 clearly establish the frivolity in the present crime. Therefore, Annexures 1 and 2 may be quashed.
2025:KER:95215 CRL.MC NO. 391 OF 2021 5
5. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent oppose the Crl.M.C. They submit that the allegations in the FIR and final report do constitute the offence. Moreover, the grounds raised in the Crl.M.C. can be substantiated only after a trial. Therefore, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.
6. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner attempted to make his dog bite the 2 nd respondent due to his previous animosity.
7. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to Section 120(l) of the Act, which reads as follows:
Penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order.-- If any person does not take due care of pets under one's care or control and thereby causing inconvenience to neighbours or public by carelessly letting them loose, shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.
8. A reading of the above provision substantiates that, in order to attract the offence, the accused has to cause inconvenience to the neighbours/public by carelessly letting the pet under his control loose.
2025:KER:95215 CRL.MC NO. 391 OF 2021 6
9. It is undisputed that the pet was on leash and was not let loose by the petitioner. The specific allegation is that the petitioner attempted to make the pet bite the 2 nd respondent. But, it is admitted that the pet did not bite the 2nd respondent. Therefore, even if the allegations in Annexures 1 and 2 are taken on their face value, the same does not attract the offence under Section 120(l) of the Act.
10. It is trite that the plenary powers of this Court 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, is expansive in nature. However, the power is not unbridled or unlimited, and has to be exercised sparingly, and with circumspection. One of the ingredients to quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in the first information report, final report or the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same will not prima facie constitute the offence alleged against 2025:KER:95215 CRL.MC NO. 391 OF 2021 7 the accused. Likewise, if the complaint is frivolous and vexatious, in nature, this Court can quash the complaint. (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]).
11. After carefully analysing the allegations in Annexures 1 and 2, I am satisfied that the allegations, if taken on their face, do not attract the offence under Section 120(l) of the Act. Furthermore, I find that there is an animosity between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent, and the 2nd respondent had got Annexures 3 and 4 FIRs. registered against the petitioner, which have been referred by the police, as reflected in the orders of this Court in Crl.M.C.Nos.382 of 2021 and 390 of 2021.
2025:KER:95215 CRL.MC NO. 391 OF 2021 8 Thus, the element of false implication and frivolity cannot be ruled out. In the totality of the facts and the circumstances of the case, and the findings rendered above, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure 1 FIR, Annexure 2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.505 of 2019 of the Trial Court, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE dkr 2025:KER:95215 CRL.MC NO. 391 OF 2021 9 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 391 OF 2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE OLLUR POLICE.
ANNEXURE 2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE OLLUR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NUMBER 259/2020 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NUMBER 934/2019 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE APPLICATION CRL.MP NO.2149/2020 IN MC NO.573/2017 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 439(2) CR.PC.