The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 15, 2026) dismissed the petition by the Augustine brothers in the cheating case in connection with the Muttil tree-felling case. The petition had sought a stay on the trial proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chottanikkara, until a final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sulthan Batery, Wayanad. 

Justice C.S. Dias directed the Chottanikkara court to commence the proceedings in the case from September 22 and dispose of the matter within six months.

The Forest Department had registered a case against the Augustine brothers before the Sulthan Bathery court pertaining to the illegal felling of rosewood trees in Muttil South Village. Additionally, another case was filed based on a complaint by M.M. Aliyar, proprietor of Malabar Timber Industries, alleging that the brothers had defrauded Mr. Aliyar by offering to sell him timber worth ₹1.4 crore with all requisite permissions.

The Director General of Prosecution (DGP), T.A. Asaf Ali, had earlier informed the court that the investigation in the case before the Sulthan Bathery court was concluded. Subsequently, the court lifted the interim stay imposed earlier and directed the investigating officer to file the final report. 

Roji Augustine, along with his brothers Josekutty Augustine and Anto Augustine, argued that if the Chottanikkara court proceeded with the cheating case before the final report was filed in the Sulthan Bathery court, it would cause them “serious prejudice”, as the two cases were intertwined. They claimed that the timber was not forest produce, and thus the Forest Department seizing it was not legally tenable.

The DGP and Mr. Aliyar contended that the brothers were trying to prolong the proceedings unnecessarily. It was pointed out that Roji Augustine was a “history-sheeter” and was accused in 37 similar cases. Since the two alleged crimes were registered for distinct sets of offences by two different police stations, and were pending before two different courts, the two proceedings could progress independently. 

The court held that the provision to avoid parallel proceedings for the same offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) could not be applied in this case. It observed that even if the transactions concerning the timber formed the factual background of both proceedings, it would not make the offences the same.