-
by sayum
09 January 2026 6:13 AM
“Where a statutory authority headed by a retired judge finds police officers guilty of atrocities in the very same incident, continuing prosecution against citizens is abuse of process”, In a significant ruling reinforcing judicial scrutiny over misuse of police powers, the High Court of Kerala on January 7, 2026, invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against five accused persons, holding that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of court, in view of an unrebutted report by the District Police Complaints Authority (DPCA) indicting police officials involved in the very incident.
Justice G. Girish in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1603 of 2020, where the accused had been charged with serious offences under Sections 332, 353, 354(B), 354(A), 224 and 225(1) read with Section 34 IPC, for allegedly assaulting a woman Civil Police Officer and obstructing lawful discharge of duty.
However, the Court noted that an independent inquiry by the DPCA, Pathanamthitta, headed by a retired District Judge, had found the de facto complainant and other police officials guilty of police excesses and recommended disciplinary action. The Court held that such findings, which remained unchallenged, could not be brushed aside and clearly discredited the foundation of the criminal case.
“The findings of the District Police Complaints Authority...would disprove the allegations levelled against the petitioners in connection with the final report filed against them,” observed Justice Girish.
Quashing Under Section 482 Justified Where Prosecution is Built on Discredited Police Version
The case arose from an incident on 14.07.2016, when the first accused allegedly parked his vehicle improperly, causing a traffic block. The woman police officer (CW1), who is the de facto complainant, reportedly instructed him to move the vehicle. The prosecution alleged that the first accused reacted violently — twisting her hand, making sexually coloured remarks, attempting to disrobe her, and resisting arrest. The remaining four accused allegedly rescued him from police custody by using force against officers.
While on its face the allegations were grave, the accused contended that the entire FIR was a counterblast to police atrocities they were subjected to during and after the incident.
Crucially, they relied on Annexure A3, the Order dated 07.02.2018 of the District Police Complaints Authority, Pathanamthitta, which found that:
“The de facto complainant and other police officials resorted to physical atrocities against the first petitioner in connection with the same incident, and committed acts unbecoming of police officers.”
The DPCA reached its conclusion after examining six witnesses, scrutinizing one documentary exhibit, two CDs and 22 photographs, all pertaining to the police operation in question.
Notably, the Authority comprised a Retired District Judge as Chairperson, and the District Collector and District Police Chief as members — lending the findings statutory and institutional credibility.
“Since the competent authority...found after inquiry that it was the de facto complainant and the police officers who had resorted to physical atrocities, it is highly necessary to terminate the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners to meet the ends of justice,” held the Court.
Findings of Independent Statutory Authority Must Be Given Due Evidentiary Weight
Justice Girish emphasized that the report of the DPCA, being the result of a statutory process by a competent authority, could not be casually disregarded, especially when it directly contradicted the police version forming the basis of the FIR and charge sheet.
The Court found no case for the prosecution that the findings in Annexure A3 were ever challenged or set aside.
“It is not possible to discard the findings of the District Police Complaints Authority while dealing with the prayer...to terminate the prosecution proceedings,” the Court noted, adding that ignoring such findings would itself defeat the ends of justice.
The ruling also reaffirms the protective jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, which is to be invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice and curb abuse of judicial process, especially when “uncontroverted material of sterling quality” establishes that the prosecution is vitiated by mala fides or has been instituted to cover up official misconduct.
No Public Interest in Continuing a Discredited Prosecution
The Court also considered the fact that the complainant and other officers, when summoned before the DPCA, chose not to adduce any evidence in their defence.
“Though the respondents appeared in that enquiry, they submitted that they had no evidence to adduce,” the order observed, thereby bolstering the petitioners’ case that the criminal prosecution was retaliatory and malicious.
The Court made it clear that where the version of police officials is contradicted by an independent body and no credible rebuttal is offered, criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to survive merely on the strength of the police narrative.
“To allow the proceedings to continue would be to give judicial cover to a version already found unreliable by a competent authority,” the Court stated.
Criminal Proceedings Quashed to Prevent Abuse of Process
On a cumulative consideration of the facts, the nature of the allegations, and the findings of the statutory authority, the High Court held that allowing the trial to proceed would be “not only futile but unjust.”
“The findings clearly disprove prosecution allegations — continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court — ends of justice require termination of prosecution,” the Court declared.
Accordingly, the Criminal M.C. was allowed, and the entire proceedings in C.C. No.310/2017 arising from Crime No.1419/2016 of Pandalam Police Station pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, were quashed.
Date of Decision: January 7, 2026
