The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against six relatives of a woman in a case alleging matrimonial cruelty and misappropriation of gold ornaments, while allowing the prosecution against her husband to continue.
Justice Jobin Sebastian passed the order on September 9, 2026, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 228 of 2026. The petition was filed by Firoz Kunnummal and six others, who were accused in Crime No. 1124 of 2024 of Tellicherry Police Station.
Background
According to the prosecution case recorded in the order, the marriage between the complainant and the first petitioner took place on September 3, 2007. She alleged that after marriage, the accused subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. It was further alleged that the first accused misappropriated her gold ornaments.
The petitioners argued that the allegations against them were vague and general and did not identify any specific act by each accused. They also pointed to the delay of nearly 17 years in lodging the complaint and argued that the investigation had not produced independent or contemporaneous material supporting the allegations.
The complainant’s side opposed the plea, maintaining that the allegations disclosed the ingredients of the offences and that the proceedings should not be stopped at this stage. The State also supported that position.
The High Court explained that its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash criminal proceedings is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. The Court said it cannot conduct a detailed assessment of evidence or hold a “mini-trial” while considering such a petition.
On the allegations against accused Nos. 2 to 7, the Court found them general and omnibus. It noted that no specific act of cruelty or harassment, or specific allegation concerning entrustment or misappropriation of gold ornaments, was attributed to them.
The Court observed:
“The allegations being vague, omnibus, and unsupported by any specific overt act attributable to them, are insufficient to sustain the prosecution against petitioner Nos. 2 to 7.”
In contrast, the Court found that the allegations against the first petitioner were specific and prima facie disclosed the ingredients of the alleged offences. Whether those allegations were true, it said, would have to be decided by the trial court on the evidence.
The High Court partly allowed the petition and quashed all further proceedings against petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 in C.C. No. 58 of 2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The proceedings against the first petitioner, Firoz Kunnummal, were directed to continue in accordance with law.
Case Title: Firoz Kunnummal & Others v. State of Kerala & Another
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 228 of 2026
Judge: Justice Jobin Sebastian
