The Kerala High Court, in a strong message against misuse of legal procedures, has imposed an exemplary cost of ₹20,000 on a petitioner who filed a second Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.) without disclosing that an earlier plea seeking the same relief was still pending.
Justice S. Manu, presiding over the matter, found that the petitioner, Shamil Muhammed, had deliberately concealed the existence of a prior Crl.M.C. (No. 516/2021) when filing another (Crl.M.C. No. 8210/2023) seeking to quash the same criminal case.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Upholds Appointment of Prof. Naima Khatoon as First Woman Vice-Chancellor of AMU
“Casual attitude in approaching this Court and experimentation in litigation cannot be tolerated,” the Court observed.
The issue came to light when the Public Prosecutor pointed out the existence and disposal of the second plea during a hearing of the first case. The Court noted that the second petition had been allowed based on a settlement affidavit without any mention of the first pending case. This, the Court found, was a clear case of abuse of judicial process and a deliberate attempt at bench hunting.
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court: Bond Condition in Previous Appointment Not Applicable After Fresh Appointment Letter
The petitioner claimed ignorance, citing poor communication with his original counsel and personal absence due to travel abroad. However, the Court found these explanations baseless, especially since he benefited from the favorable order in the second plea.
“Inherent powers cannot be used to extend relief to someone who approached the court in an unclean manner and withheld important information,” the Court stated.
The judge emphasized that such conduct strikes at the root of justice delivery and that litigants must come to court with clean hands. The Court referenced multiple Supreme Court rulings that underline the importance of truthfulness and full disclosure in litigation, including Dalip Singh v. State of UP and K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
“Suppression or concealment of material facts is not advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, and misrepresentation,” the Supreme Court had noted in K.D. Sharma.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict on Parents’ Plea Against Expulsion of DPS Dwarka Students Over Fee Dispute
Justice Manu further highlighted the need for stricter compliance with declarations about earlier proceedings in all criminal pleas, not just bail applications. Rule 146 of the Kerala High Court Rules already mandates such declarations for constitutional petitions, and the Court called for similar rules for Crl.M.Cs under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
In conclusion, the Court not only imposed a ₹20,000 cost to be paid to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority but also directed the Registry to explore stricter protocols to prevent similar abuses in the future.
“Court has a duty to zealously guard the judicial process from being misused by unscrupulous litigants,” the judge said firmly.
Case Title: Shamil Muhammed v. State of Kerala and another
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 516/2021
Order Date: April 29, 2025
Judge: Justice S. Manu
Petitioner's Advocate: P. Anoop (Mulavana)
Public Prosecutor: Harish K.P.
