Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan declined to interfere with the trial proceedings against an accused who allegedly sent threatening SMS messages to the Chief Minister of Kerala. The Court dismissed the plea seeking to prematurely terminate the criminal trial and directed that the petitioner face proceedings before the trial court. The final judicial directive was that such threats to constitutional authorities are serious in nature and must be addressed through trial and legal scrutiny. The Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition, holding that "such action should be handled with the iron hand of the law, with a message to society."

The case stems from an incident reported on 2nd May 2021, the date on which the Kerala State Legislative Assembly election results were declared. On that evening, the Additional Private Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala received two SMS messages from mobile number 9074656746, both stating, "I will kill Pinarayi Vijayan."

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Assam Over Encounter Killings | Justice Must Not Be Illusory | AHRC To Probe Alleged Police Excesses

Upon receipt, the Additional Private Secretary reported the threat to the Director General of Police (DGP), who directed immediate legal action. Consequently, Crime No. 309/2021 was registered by Ernakulam Town South Police Station, invoking Sections 153 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

Following the investigation, a final report was filed arraigning the petitioner as the accused. The petitioner, Abijith M., a 38-year-old bank employee, sought relief before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, by invoking Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), praying for the cessation of criminal proceedings.

The trial court rejected the application on 12.05.2023 in C.M.P. No.2091/2023 in C.C. No.905/2021, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court with Criminal Revision Petition No. 624 of 2023.

The petitioner argued that even if the entire contents of the final report are accepted as true, no offences under Sections 153 or 506(i) IPC are made out. It was also submitted that Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act is not attracted. The petitioner further contended that the only cognizable offence alleged is under Section 153 IPC, and registration of the case without prior judicial sanction renders the proceeding invalid. Another objection raised was on territorial jurisdiction grounds, as the message was received in Thiruvananthapuram, whereas the FIR was registered in Ernakulam.

In response, the Senior Public Prosecutor, Smt. Seetha S., submitted that the allegations are grave in nature, especially given the position of the individual threatened. The prosecutor pointed out that the petitioner, being a literate bank employee, could not feign ignorance of the legal consequences.

"Nowadays, it is a trend to send threatening messages and use derogatory statements against constitutional authorities... to get publicity."

The Court acknowledged the increasing misuse of social media platforms to malign constitutional authorities, noting the strain such acts impose on law enforcement resources.

Regarding the application under Section 258 Cr.P.C., the Court explained: "The language of Section 258 Cr.P.C. is very wide... but the trend of judicial decisions... suggest that it is an enabling section and is one to be applied in very special circumstances."

Quoting Neela Lohitha Dasan Nadar v. State of Kerala [2003 KHC 143], the Court stated : "Section 258 Cr.P.C is intended to be applied only in very special and compelling circumstances... The power to stop the proceedings at any stage has to be sparingly used and that too in exceptional or unusual circumstances."

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that no such exceptional or unusual circumstances existed in the present case to invoke Section 258 Cr.P.C. It further stated: "Even if it is sent as a joke or because of the sad mood developed in a spur-of-the-moment... the petitioner is expected to be aware of the consequences... especially when he is not an illiterate person."

The Court noted that the police had to spend considerable effort to investigate the matter and identify the origin of the SMS. It remarked: "Unnecessarily, the valuable time of the police force will be spoiled by such acts... It is the duty of the police and the court to give a message to society about the consequences of such acts."

Rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on precedents including Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala, Ramesh v. Sub Inspector of Police, and Manuel P.J. v. State of Kerala, the Court differentiated those cases on factual grounds. It recorded: "Here is a case where the allegation is that the petitioner sent two SMS to the Additional Private Secretary to the Chief Minister that he would kill the Chief Minister... The dictum laid down in Sanjeev's case is not applicable."

The Court also addressed the petitioner’s argument based on the Supreme Court judgment in John v. State of U.P. [2025 KLT Online 1008 (SC)], which questioned the validity of investigations based on non-cognizable offences without jurisdiction. The Court left the issue open for trial: "The question raised by the petitioner is left open, and the petitioner is free to raise the same before the trial court at the appropriate stage."

The Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition, concluding: "In this case, I am of the considered opinion that this Court need not scrupulously consider the ingredients of Section 155 Cr.P.C. at this stage. The question raised by the petitioner is left open, and the petitioner is free to raise the same before the trial court at the appropriate stage. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that such a contention need not be entertained by this Court at this stage."

Also Read: Child Sexual Abuse Cases In Mizoram Alarming | Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under POCSO And Directs Statewide Safeguards To Protect Children

It further remarked on the broader societal implications of the case: "The social media comments are a menace to society now. Not only the citizens, but the constitutional authorities are also maligned and defamed with derogatory statements... If this Court, even without a trial, declare that no offence is made out, it will give a wrong message to society."

"Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed."

The Court held that all contentions, including jurisdiction and the applicability of the statutory provisions, remain open for the trial court to consider: "The trial court will consider all contentions of the petitioner untrammelled by any observation in this order."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, M. Promodh Kumar, N.P. Asha
For the Respondents: Smt. Seetha S., Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Abijith M. v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:36693
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 624 of 2023
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan

[Read/Download order]