Kerala High Court
Sivaprasad @ Kannan vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:13197
CRL.MC NO. 1046 OF 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1046 OF 2026
CRIME NO.2745/2018 OF Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.1330 OF 2024 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED PERSONS:
1 SIVAPRASAD @ KANNAN
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, THEKKEPADASSERRIL HOUSE,
PATHIYOOR EAST MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE,
KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN -
690552
2 AMAL S. KUMAR
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SREEKUMAR, SIVARAM HOUSE, PELA MURI,
KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN - 690106
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.K.SAJI
SMT.MAYAMOL T.S.
SHRI.SARAN SIVAN
SHRI.SAGITH KUMAR V.
SMT.DEVAPRIYA S.
SMT.AADIYA
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND TEH DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
2026:KER:13197
CRL.MC NO. 1046 OF 2026
2
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 VINEESH RAJ
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O VISWARAJAN, KALLITTAKADAVIL HOUSE, KADAVOOR MURI,
KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN - 690106
PP. SRI. M.P.PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13197
CRL.MC NO. 1046 OF 2026
3
ORDER
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2026 The petitioners are the accused in SC No.1330/2024 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara ( Trial Court), which has originated from Crime No. 2745/2018 registered by the Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Section 447 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 ( 'Act' in short).
2. The prosecution case, in essence, is that:-
On 17.12.2018, at about 00.30 hours, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant(2nd respondent), while he was watching television, and one among the accused ignited a firecracker and threw it in the courtyard and he ran away from the scene of occurrence.
2026:KER:13197 CRL.MC NO. 1046 OF 2026 4 The 2nd respondent also found one more person running away from his house. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argues that, even if the allegation in Annexure A1 final report are taken on their face value, the same will not attract the offences alleged against the petitioners. He drew the attention of this Court to the First Information Statement given by the 2nd respondent, wherein he has stated that only one person had trespassed into his property and threw a firecracker in the varanda of the house, which did not explode. Subsequently, another person was also seen running away from his house. He also invited the attention of this Court to the scene mahazar, and contends that the firecrackers did not explode. Therefore, according to him, the provisions of Section 3 of the Act are not 2026:KER:13197 CRL.MC NO. 1046 OF 2026 5 attracted. Hence, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the Crl.M.C. He drew the attention of this Court to the final report and submits that the petitioners were identified by the 2nd respondent. Furthermore, the materials on record substantiates that the firecrackers had exploded. He also contends that, even assuming without conceding that Section 3 of the Act is not attracted, there is specific overt act alleged against the petitioners that they had trespassed into the house of the 2nd respondent, which attracts the offence under Section 447 of the IPC. Therefore, this Court may not embark upon a minitrial at this stage and conclude that the petitioners have not committed the offences. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.
6. The essence of the prosecution case is that the petitioners had trespassed into the property of the 2 nd respondent and threw firecrackers in the varanda, which 2026:KER:13197 CRL.MC NO. 1046 OF 2026 6 exploded and then they ran away from the scene of occurrence.
7. The final report and the material on record, prima facie reveals that an explosion took place in the varanda of the 2nd respondent' house, and the 2nd respondent identified that it was the petitioners who committed the offences.
8 It is well-established that this Court has broad inherent 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. 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, final report or the complaint are taken 2026:KER:13197 CRL.MC NO. 1046 OF 2026 7 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 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 2026:KER:13197 CRL.MC NO. 1046 OF 2026 8 330] and HMT Watches Ltd. v. Abida M.A. and another [(2015) 11 SCC 776].
10. After carefully analysing the allegations in Annexure A1 final report and finding that there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners, which prima facie attracts the offences alleged against them, and the question whether the firecrackers had exploded and had the petitioners trespassed into the house of the 2 nd respondent are matters of trial, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Crl.M.C is devoid of any merits and is consequentially dismissed. Nonetheless, it would upto the petitioners to raise all their contention before the Trial Court, including filing an application for discharge, provided the charge has not been framed. If such an application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider 2026:KER:13197 CRL.MC NO. 1046 OF 2026 9 and dispose the application, untrammelled by any observation made in this order.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm 13/2/2026 2026:KER:13197 CRL.MC NO. 1046 OF 2026 10 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1046 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN S.C. 1330/2024 DATED 30.06.2019 OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-I, MAVELIKARA IN CRIME NO. 2745/2018 OF MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION