Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan on 26 August 2025 dismissed two criminal revision petitions, holding that the matters were not maintainable in law. The Court directed that the revision petitions be withdrawn with liberty to the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal under the relevant statutory provision. It further clarified that the time during which the petitions remained pending before the High Court shall be excluded in the event of any question of delay in filing such appeal. The certified copies of the impugned orders were directed to be returned to the Public Prosecutor forthwith. Accordingly, both revision petitions stood dismissed as withdrawn.

The matter arose out of Crime No.193 of 2021 registered at the Badiadukka Police Station, Kasaragod. The proceedings stemmed from Sessions Case No.80 of 2023 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. Orders had been passed on 05 October 2024 in Crl.M.P. No.5201 of 2023 and in S.C. No.80 of 2023 by the Sessions Court, which were challenged before the High Court by way of criminal revision petitions.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Mere Non-Signing Will Not Invalidate Arbitration Agreement Where Parties Consented and Acted Upon Contract | Section 45, Arbitration and Conciliation Act

The revision petitioners were the State of Kerala, represented in one petition by the Station House Officer of Badiadukka Police Station through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, and in the other petition by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kasaragod through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala. The respondents in the petitions were the accused in the underlying criminal proceedings.

In Criminal Revision Petition No.1095 of 2024, the respondent was K. Surendran, aged 51 years, son of Kunhiraman, residing at Kunnummal House, Modakkallur, Atholi Village, Kozhikode. In Criminal Revision Petition No.1105 of 2024, the respondents were six accused persons, namely: (1) K. Surendran, (2) Manikanta Rai @ Manikanta Patla, (3) Suresha Y, (4) Sunil Kumar D. @ Sunil Naik, (5) Advocate Balakrishna Shetty, and (6) Lokesh Nonda. Each of them was identified by their parentage, age, and residential addresses as recorded in the petition.

The record indicates that the accused persons had filed discharge applications before the Sessions Court. By order dated 05 October 2024, the Sessions Court allowed the discharge applications and discharged the accused. Aggrieved by this decision, the State authorities approached the High Court in revision.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan recorded that the revision petitions were directed against the order allowing the discharge application and discharging the accused. The Court referred to a recent decision in Xavier Raj v. State of Kerala [2025 (4) KLT 257], in which it was held that the appropriate remedy against an order passed in a discharge petition is an appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court extracted paragraph 8 of that judgment, stating: “From the above authoritative judgment and other judgments of the Apex Court, it is clear that an order passed in a discharge petition is not an interlocutory order, and it is an intermediate order. If that is the case, there is no doubt that an appeal is maintainable under Section 14A of the Act, 1989. When a statutory appeal is maintainable against an order, this Court need not entertain a revision against that order invoking the powers under Secs. 438 and 442 of the BNSS.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court | PIL Against Appointment of Former Finance Minister T. M. Thomas Isaac as Advisor Dismissed | State’s Power Affirmed Under Article 162 and Rules of Business

Based on the above reasoning, the Court held that the revision petitions filed by the State were not maintainable. The Court recorded: “In the light of the same, these revision petitions are not maintainable.” It was further noted that at this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that liberty may be granted to withdraw the revision petitions with permission to file an appeal under the appropriate provision.

The Court directed that both criminal revision petitions stood dismissed as withdrawn. The order stated: “At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw these revision petitions with liberty to file an appeal. Liberty is granted. If any appeal is filed, the time during which these revisions was pending before this Court (from 15.10.2024 to 26.08.2025) shall be excluded, if any question of delay arises in such proceedings. The certified copy of the impugned order shall be returned to the learned Public Prosecutor forthwith. Accordingly, these revisions are dismissed as withdrawn.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Public Prosecutor; Director General of Prosecution; Shri. P. Narayanan, Senior Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor; Shri. Sajju S., Senior Government Pleader; Shri. C.S. Hrithwick, Senior Public Prosecutor

For the Respondents: Sri. P. Martin Jose; Sri. C. Dinesh; Shri. Shreekantha K.; Sri. P. Prijith; Sri. Thomas P. Kuruvilla; Sri. R. Githesh; Shri. Ajay Ben Jose; Sri. Manjunath Menon; Shri. Sachin Jacob Ambat; Smt. Anna Linda Eden; Sri. S. Vaidyanathan; Shri. Harikrishnan S.; Sri. S. Sreekumar (Senior Advocate)

Case Title: State of Kerala v. K. Surendran & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:64985

Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.1095/2024 and 1105/2024

Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan