This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 6520 of 2021) filed before the Kerala High Court challenging FIR No.584/2019 registered at Perumbavoor Police Station and the consequent final report in CC No.422/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor. The petitioners, 69 in number, including the named petitioners such as FR. Saji Job, Binu Paul, C.C. Sunny, Sajeev M. Jacob, Jain Mathew and others, are accused in the magistrate’s case along with others. Respondents include the State represented by the Public Prosecutor, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuruppampady, and Fr. Eldho KuriaKose (the 3rd respondent). The core issue is whether the final report and proceedings arising from FIR 584/2019 can be quashed, given allegations of offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 341, 447, 506, 188 and 294(b) read with 149 IPC, centering on a church dispute at Bethel Suloko Cathedral Church, Perumbavoor, including an injunction order (O.S.31/2018) that the petitioners allegedly violated. The court examines whether the prosecution established unlawful assembly, common object, and knowledge of the order; whether Section 188 IPC is applicable to civil injunctions; and whether the proceedings constitute abuse of process warranting quashing. Ultimately, the court allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes all further proceedings in CC 422/2019, holding no material to sustain the charged offences beyond mere assembly.
Malol Pulikkoool Ibrahim, the appellant-plaintiff, had filed O.S. No.150 of 2011 in the Sub Court, Vatakara, seeking recovery of Rs.36,21,689 with interest from the defendants Majeed and Danish Majeed. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.11.2013 after the plaintiff failed to appear; an application for restoration was filed, supported by medical evidence indicating cardiac disease. Thereafter, I.A.456 of 2015 (Section 5 Limitation Act) to condone the delay and I.A.457 of 2015 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for setting aside the dismissal were disposed by a common order dated 20.11.2015, which is challenged in this FAO. The appellant contends the trial court erred in denying relief, arguing that sufficient cause existed for non-appearance and for delay, including medical treatment; he asserts the court should restore the suit rather than dismiss on a technical ground. The respondents contend that the trial court properly exercised its discretion, considering the repeated default and lack of diligence. The High Court, applying Orders IX 8, 9 and 13 and Section 5, held that the rule of sufficient cause is elastic and must be tempered by ends of justice, drawing on G.P. Srivastava, Katiji, Esha Bhattacharjee, Peeves Enterprises, M. Shivananda, and Rafeek. It allowed restoration of the suit on payment of Rs. 3,000 as costs, set aside the 2015 order, and directed restoration with a four-month timeline, with appearance on 20.07.2023.
This writ petition challenges an interim Lok Ayukta order directing provisional promotions of Surveyor Grade I to Assistant Engineer in the Kerala Water Authority’s Diploma quota. The Government had issued G.O. No.1625/06/WRD (28-12-2006) directing that qualified Surveyor Grade I with a Civil Engineering Diploma and at least eight years of service be included in the feeder category for promotion to Assistant Engineer in the Diploma quota. Draft Technical Special Rules, which were intended to implement this feeder category, had not yet been approved or notified by the Government. The Lok Ayukta, relying on these documents and a High Court judgment in WP(C) No.35307/11, directed provisional promotions for the complainants, including one who is nearing retirement. The petition contends that without finalization and notification of Technical Special Rules, there is no valid rule enabling such feeder-category promotions, and the Lok Ayukta lacked jurisdiction to entertain (and grant interim relief in) the complaint. It also challenges the Government’s ability to implement the G.O. and the Water Authority’s attempt to rely on it. The respondents argue interim relief is warranted pending final rules. The High Court ultimately finds fault with the interim order and emphasizes principles restricting interim relief from equating to final relief, setting aside the Lok Ayukta order and allowing the petition.
CRL. M.C. NO.6888 OF 2023 This High Court of Kerala, in CrL.M.C. No. 6888 of 2023, exercises its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding arising from Crime No. 897/2023 of Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki. The petitioners, George and Athul Krishna, were accused under IPC sections 294(b), 323, and 341 r/w 34. The prosecution case alleges wrongful restraint, assault, and use of filthy language. The petitioners submit that the dispute has been settled; the victim has filed an affidavit stating no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded the matter is settled. The court, after perusing the record and affidavits, relies on Supreme Court precedents: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which hold that S.482 CrPC power can be used to quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes where the civil character predominates and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, provided the offences are not heinous or categorised under special statutes. After applying these tests, the court finds the dispute private in nature, accepts the settlement, and allows the Criminal Misc Case; all further proceedings in Crime No. 897/2023 are quashed.
Neethu, a student, seeks correction of her date of birth in the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) records to reflect her school records. The 1st respondent CBSE rejected the request under amended examination byelaws Rule 69.2, asserting that no change in date of birth recorded in CBSE records is permissible and that the school records do not align with the correction sought. The petitioner challenged Ext.P5 before the Kerala High Court (WP(C) No. 28453 of 2023). In Jigya Yadav v. CBSE (SC) 2021 (3) KLT 711, the Supreme Court laid down a framework for corrections in CBSE certificates: there are two situations—corrections to align the CBSE certificate with public or school records, and changes based on later acquired names; the Court emphasized that corrections may be entertained within a reasonable time, subject to conditions such as sworn affidavits, indemnity, and the possibility of surrendering the original certificate for re-issuance with annotated changes. The Kerala High Court concluded that the 1st respondent did not apply Jigya Yadav and the amended byelaws properly, and proceeded to direct the CBSE to reconsider Ext.P1 in light of Jigya Yadav. The directive also calls for amendment of the byelaws to incorporate the stated mechanism. The writ petition is disposed of with no costs.
MACA Nos.231/14 & 491/2014 These Motor Accidents Claims Appeals arise from a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, in O.P.(MV) Nos. 448 of 2005 and 449 of 2005, relating to a 21.12.2004 accident involving a motorcycle and a car (KL-01/D-3157). The car was owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent; the motorcycle was owned by the 3rd respondent and insured by the 4th respondent. The claimants contended the car driver was negligent; the insurer for the motorcycle contested liability and the quantum. The Tribunal held in OP(MV) No.449/2005 that the motorcycle rider was negligent and dismissed the petition, while in OP(MV) No.448/2005 it awarded Rs.6,48,000 and directed deposit, finding the car rider at fault against the insurer of the motorcycle. On appeal, the Kerala High Court, through Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., set aside the Tribunal’s finding of negligence against the motorcycle rider, noting the lack of eyewitness testimony and the improper reliance on scene mahazar evidence. The Court held the police Final Report (Ext.A1–A2) based on three eyewitnesses should be preferred in the absence of contrary evidence, citing Pazhaniammal (2011) and Jiju Kuruvila (2013) for the limits of scene mahazar. The Court held the accident occurred due to the negligence of the car driver (5th respondent) and directed payment by the insurers: Rs.75,000 plus interest in one petition and Rs.6,48,000 with interest in the other, with deposit within three months.
CRL.R.P. No. 2334 of 2010 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision by Omanakuttan, the 1st accused in SC No.221/2006, challenging his conviction under Sections 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The trial court, on 7.11.2008, convicted him and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000; the co-accused were acquitted. The Appellate Court (Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track II, Alappuzha) affirmed the conviction and sentence. The revision contends that key prosecution documents suffer from serious procedural failings: Ext.P1 seizure mahazar does not contain a specimen seal or its description; Ext.P5 forwarding note omits the name of the Excise Guard who forwarded the sample; there is no examination of the guard; the link between seizure and laboratory analysis is undermined by delays (seizure on 15.12.2000, analysis completed 31.8.2001, charge laid 18.11.2005); and Section 50 of the Abkari Act mandates prompt investigation. The petitioner relies on strict compliance with statutory formalities (citing Baburaj; Kumaran; Vijayan; Sasidharan; others) and argues that the lacunae create reasonable doubt about guilt. The court canvasses related precedents emphasizing tamper-proof despatch, chain of custody, and the danger of unexplained delays. Ultimately, the High Court allows the revision, sets aside the conviction and sentence, acquits the 1st accused, and orders liberty with bail bond cancelled. The decision underscores the necessity of strict ingestion of statutory formalities in Abkari matters and the perils of missteps in chain-of-custody evidence.
WP(C) No. 33774 of 2018 & connected cases These writ petitions challenge the insistence of Regional Transport Officers to collect motor tax under Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act from undertakings that contend they are exempt because they are already covered by the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) or the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (KMTWFA) imposes contributions by employers and employees, but its proviso excludes those undertakings to which EPF/Gratuity provisions apply. The petitioners contend that because their establishments are covered by the EPF Act or Gratuity Act, they are not bound to remit to the Welfare Fund, and the RTOs’ demand for proof of remittance or for Welfare Fund certificates is improper. They rely on a Division Bench decision in George Antony v. State of Kerala, which held that exemption under the proviso to Section 4 is a matter to be proved in adjudication proceedings by the Welfare Fund Board and not decided by the writ court or the RTO. The court considers Section 4, its proviso, and Section 4(7) of the Taxation Act, as well as the need for adjudicating officers to verify EPF coverage. Ultimately, the petitions are disposed of with directions: EPF remittance proofs may yield an authentic certificate; the District Executive Officer will issue a clearance after expeditious enquiry (within six weeks) if eligible; upon receipt, petitioners may present the clearance to the RTO; if not exempt, the DEO will complete adjudication and determine contributions. The order consolidates relief for expeditious processing and cooperation between authorities to facilitate tax remittance while respecting statutory exemptions.
This original petition (O.P.(KAT) No.103 of 2023) before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal challenges an order dismissing a challenge to an order that counted time spent on Leave Without Allowances (LWA) for pay reckoning. The petitioner, K. Chandrasekharan Nair, a retired Assistant Superintendent Grade-II in the Department of Prisons, sought to re-fix his pay by counting the period of LWA for increments, higher grade, and pension. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, and the High Court heard the matter on 26.09.2023, delivering judgment on 31.10.2023. The court discusses Rule 26 of Part III Kerala Service Rules (KSR), focusing on the historical pre‑amendment position and the 2009 amendment (SRO 918/2009). Pre‑amendment Rule 26 counted time on leave as qualifying service unless otherwise specified, while the amended Rule 26(a)-(b) restricts counting for leave without allowances, with enumerated exceptions (e.g., medical leave with certificate, study leave, maternity-related provisions, and specific provisos). The court notes that the LWA in question was granted on 28/09/2011, after amendment, so the amended rule applies. The petitioner cites W.A.No.1004/2021 and Elizabath v. Director of Health Services (1998 KHC 596) as supportive authorities, but the court distinguishes or limits them under the amended regime, concluding no relief can be granted, and the petition is dismissed. The decision underscores that statutory amendments govern post‑amendment acts, and leniency cannot override these rules.
This is an execution appeal (Ex.F.A.No.14 of 2022) from a dispute arising out of an arbitration award in EP No.192 of 2019. The respondent-decree holder sought to execute the arbitral award under Section 47 CPC on a petition filed in 2021 before the Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara. The appellants contended that essential records under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were not furnished (Section 25(a)) and that a copy of the award was not served (Section 31(5)), rendering the award non-executable. The ADJ dismissed the execution petition on 07.04.2022, prompting the present appeal under Section 96 CPC. A Full Bench of this Court in Mohamemad Khan v. State Bank of Travancore (1978 KLT 262) held that, after amendments to Section 2(2) and the insertion of Section 99A, an order under Section 47 cannot be treated as a decree and is not appealable; the amendment removed the Section 47 reference from the decree definition, extinguishing the right of appeal. The appellants argued that Sections 97(2)(a) and 97(3) preserve the right of appeal against such determinations and that the Mohamemad Khan ruling cannot be per incuriam. The court preferred harmonious construction and concluded that Section 47 orders do not constitute appealable decrees under Section 96 (and 104) CPC, even with Section 99A. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The decision reinforces the view that a statutory right of appeal exists only where expressly provided by law and harmonises several amendments to the CPC.
CRL.M.C. No. 2555 of 2022 The Kerala High Court, in multiple Criminal Misc. Cases (CRL.M.C. Nos. 2555/2022 and connected cases), heard on 12 September 2023 before Judge Raja Vijayaraghavan V, deals with challenges under Section 482 CrPC to Annexure-A1 complaints under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (PSS Act). The petitioners, RCI Industries & Technologies Ltd (RCI Ltd) along with its Managing Director Rajeev Gupta and Director Mamta Gupta, contend that cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Ernakulam, was improper, arguing non-compliance with Section 27(1)(c) (demand notice) because the information of dishonor of electronic funds transfer was received from the M1xchange platform rather than directly from the bank; and that the Master Buyer Agreement and related arrangements designate Delhi as the forum. They also challenge jurisdiction, 202 CrPC inquiry requirements, and vicarious liability of directors under Section 141 NI Act, advocating quashing and discharge. The respondents submit that the TReDS platform, RBI-guided, and information flow from the platform or bank through M1xchange suffices for notice and cognizance; that the complaints disclose a prima facie case and were properly issued within Ernakulam’s jurisdiction; and that the petitions should be dismissed. The Court held that the information flow via the platform satisfies Section 27(c), cognizance was proper, and the petitions were to be dismissed. The final order: the petitions are dismissed.
The petition is filed by four landowners in Mannancherry, Ambalappuzha taluk, seeking to challenge Ext.P10, the Tahsildar's instruction to file Form-5 because the land is included in the Data Bank under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order). The petitioners claim absolute possession of 32.28 acres of land, which is classified in earlier judgments as converted land. The court references Ext.P1 (2015) which held the land converted and allowed the petitioners to seek changes in land use through the KLU Order; Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 judgments permitted conversion to non-paddy use including residential and commercial construction, and stated that applications for reassessment of land tax under the Land Tax Act should be considered within an outer time limit set by those judgments. Ext.P9 is the petitioners’ application before the 3rd respondent, and Ext.P10 their notification to file Form-5 since the land is Data Bank. The petition asserts Ext.P10 is inconsistent with the earlier judgments and with the principle of law declared in Exts.P4 and P5. After hearing, the court extracts portions of Ext.P4 which emphasize that converted land cannot be forced to grow crops; the land can be utilized for other purposes under Clause 6 of the KLU Order, with conditions to safeguard neighbors. It also notes Ext.P5's direction that reassessment under Section 6A should be considered within specific time frames. The court holds Ext.P10 unsustainable, sets it aside, and directs the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter within one month in light of Exts.P4 and P5.
BA Nos. 6263 & 6306 of 2022 These are bail petitions (BA Nos. 6263/2022 and 6306/2022) arising from Crime Nos. 171/2022 (Kasaragod) and 202/2022 (Badiadka) in Kasaragod district, filed by Muhammed Kabeer N.M. The petitioner is accused of involvement in a large narcotic seizure (22.3 kg ganja) under the NDPS Act (s 22(b)(ii)(C) r/w s 29) and, in BA 6306/2022, under s 22(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act; he is charged along with others. The police intercepted an auto-rickshaw, searched it, and found the contraband. The prosecution asserts that the petitioner was actively involved in the conspiracy to bring ganja into Kerala, citing the recovered contraband, the suspect's location in Andhra Pradesh, and call-detail records showing repeated contact with co-accused. The defense maintains that the confession of the co-accused and the mobile records cannot be the sole basis of denial of bail; it relies on Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu and Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta's decision to argue that bail should not be opposed solely on co-accused statements, especially when a final report is already laid. The court acknowledges these points but notes that the case involves commercial quantity and multiple NDPS cases; Section 37’s stringent conditions are applicable, and the prosecution’s materials, including CDR and ongoing contact, prima facie connect the petitioner to the offense. The judge ultimately denies bail, clarifying that the observations are limited to bail and do not decide merits.
This writ petition (WP(C) No.17025 of 2019) challenges Ext.P3 circular dated 3.6.2019 which directed not to follow communal rotation while effecting appointments from the Ext.P1 seniority list of Anganwadi workers/helpers under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) in Kerala, and Ext.P4 appointment of the 6th respondent. The petitioner, a temporary Anganwadi worker awaiting regularization, contends that Ext.P2 circular (6/2019) mandates communal rotation for appointments from Ext.P1 and that her position at serial No.5 entitles her to be appointed under the Muslim quota; Ext.P3 should have prospective effect and vacancy arising before its issuance must be filled in terms of Ext.P2. She relies on Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India arguing a reservation-based appointment is necessary. The State argues ICDS is a centrally sponsored scheme with statutory guidelines, that Anganwadi workers are grass-roots functionaries where reservation would compromise their honorary status, and that rotation is applicable only to open-market selection; Ext.P3 relates to open-market candidates and is not retroactive to the seniority list. The court recognizes the ICDS framework and the seniority list being based on days worked, and holds that rotation cannot override seniority or be retroactively applied. On these lines, the petition is dismissed and the 6th respondent’s appointment, based on seniority, is upheld.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the police action in Crime No.1865/2021 and the alleged recovery of gold ornaments pledged with Muthoot Fincorp Limited at its Gopalapuram branch, Palakkad. The petitioner, an RBI-regulated NBFC, contends that it acted solely as a bonafide pledgee in two gold loan accounts opened by the 3rd respondent in September–October 2021. The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint alleging theft of gold and diamonds from his residence between August 9 and August 26, 2021, prompting the Palakkad Town South police to register the FIR under IPC sections 457, 380 and 461, later adding 462 and 381 with Section 34. It is alleged that ornaments pledged with the petitioner correspond to the stolen property and that recovery by the police is necessary for investigation. The petitioner asserts lack of power in the 1st respondent to seize pledged ornaments and points to Exts. P1–P2 showing differing descriptions of pledged items. The court examined the case diary, heard both sides, and noted the delay in reporting but relied on the State of Kerala v. Mohanan principle that delay cannot automatically invalidate testimony. Ultimately, the court held the petition lacking merit and dismissed it, allowing the investigation to proceed and rejecting the petitioner’s claim to restrain police action.
Petitioner Kushalprajapati, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the CISF, challenged a minor penalty order dated 28 April 2020 imposing seven days' salary deduction for alleged misconduct at Madurai Airport on 2 November 2019. The charge concerned dereliction of duty: the petitioner allegedly returned a passenger for frisking, closed the Male Frisking Booth using a Queue Manager Tape, and left the Security Hold Area without handing over charge or obtaining permission. A charge sheet was issued under CISF Rules, 2001 (Rules 34 and 37); the inquiry examined CCTV footage from 13:01:32 to 13:04:11 showing the petitioner closing the booth, leaving the area, and later returning. The petitioner asserted that he urgently needed to use the washroom and that CCTV footage for earlier times (12:30–12:50) should have been provided; he also contended that the inquiry was not properly conducted under Rule 37(2) and that the deletion of footage tainted the proceedings. The respondents argued the footage confirms misconduct and that Rule 37(1)(a) requirement of notice and opportunity was satisfied; Rule 37(2) does not apply to a minor penalty. The court held that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with CISF Rules and, applying the principle from State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, that it is not a court of appeal, declined to interfere. The petition was dismissed.
WP(C) Nos. 3702/2023 & 3850/2023 This writ petition, heard together with WP(C) Nos. 3702 and 3850 of 2023, concerns two Jal Jeevan Mission projects in Wayanad and Kozhikode districts. The petitioner, K.T. Manoj, a PWD contractor, seeks to quash Exts.P8 and P9 (pre-qualification decisions) and to have him treated as pre-qualified for the tenders under Exts.P1 and P2, which relate to two separate e-tenders for laying distribution systems and providing FHTCs. The core dispute revolves around the calculation of net worth and the interpretation of tender conditions under Clause 7.17.1.1 and Sub-clauses including 7.17.1.1.a, 7.17.1.2.14 and 7.17.1.2.1. The petitioner argues that his net worth, as per certified annual accounts for FY 2021-22, is Rs. 93,89,421, which should meet the criteria; he contends the company used the wrong metric (capital in annual return) to determine net worth. The Water Authority counters that the net worth must be drawn from certified annual accounts; for two works the threshold was Rs.256 and Rs.306 lakhs; the petitioner’s net worth fails. It is argued that past experience is required for components above 10% of PAC, and Ext.P10 shows only an ongoing project; The court, citing Apex Court precedents, emphasizes restraint in judicial review of tender decisions and ultimately dismisses the petitions, upholding the tender authority's decision.
CRL.A Nos. 874, 879, 880, 881 & 882/2022 This batch of connected criminal appeals (CRL.A Nos. 874, 879, 880, 881 & 882 of 2022) from the Kerala High Court concerns whether a Court under the SC/ST (POA) Act, specifically a Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, can cancel bail granted by the High Court under Section 14A of the Act if the accused violates bail conditions. The appellant-accused challenged cancellations of their bail by the Special Court, arguing that a Court of Session cannot cancel bail granted by the High Court under the appellate jurisdiction conferred by Section 14A, and that the Special Court has no inherent authority to revoke a superior court’s bail order. The learned Judge Kauser Edappagath reasoned that the Special Court/Exclusive Special Court, constituted under Section 14, is essentially a Court of Session for original jurisdiction and can invoke Section 439(2) Cr.P.C to arrest and custody an accused released on bail, including acts of cancelling such bail if violations of conditions occur. The judgment discusses concurrent jurisdiction between High Courts and Sessions Courts under 439(2), the interplay with 14A, and the absence of a specific bail-cancellation provision in the SC/ST Act itself, applying analogies from Cr.P.C. It relies on precedents like Gurcharan Singh, Sanjay Gandhi, and A.R. Antulay, among others, to uphold the bail-cancellation powers in this context. The court ultimately sustains most cancellations while partially allowing one appeal and restoring bail in respect of a single accused, with several appeals dismissed.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions challenge Government Order G.O.(M.S.) No.121/2022 dated 7 July 2022 and the prospectus for Plus One admissions in private aided higher secondary schools in Kerala. The Kerala High Court, in a single-judge judgment by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, holds that while the Government’s policy decision to reduce the management quota to 20% (G.O.(M.S.) No.121/2022/G.Edn) is permissible and not to be disturbed in judicial review, the accompanying provision requiring private aided schools to declare the community to which the management belongs and to earmark 10% of seats for that community is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The court declares that the 10% community quota cannot stand and must be treated as open merit seats to be filled strictly through the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP). The judgment emphasizes that there is no vested right to a 30% management quota and that a policy decision made by the Government may be altered by the State, subject to constitutional limits. It traces historical norms dating to GO Nos. 18/91, 29/91, 206/2005, and subsequent judgments, and references several constitutional and Supreme Court precedents on merit, fairness, and non-discrimination in higher education admissions. The petitions are disposed of with the 10% community quota quashed and CAP opened to fill those seats, while the 20% management quota remains intact for aided schools.
This is an anticipatory bail application before the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, heard by Justice Viju Abraham on 14 November 2022. Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are Kattiveetttil Thomas Mathew, Nidhimon Mathew, and Bijoy Antony, accused in Crime No.1013 of 2022 registered at Mattannur Police Station under IPC sections 463, 464, 468, 471 and 34. The prosecution alleges a scheme involving hotel and real-estate ventures tied to Aroma Ayur Heritage Resort, wherein the petitioners allegedly transformed a building into a four-star facility and engaged in a financial arrangement with hotel owners. A partnership was formed (registered 7.12.2019) and substantial expenditure claimed, but civil litigation ensued in OS No.68 of 2022. A private complaint under Section 190(1) CrPC was forwarded, leading to the FIR. The petitioners contend the dispute is civil in nature and that the alleged forged Annexure-A5 certificate is part of civil proceedings, seeking anticipatory bail. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing forged documents and non-disclosure of development work. The Court grants anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, finding custodial interrogation unnecessary but allowing police investigation, and citing Sushila Aggarwal to justify police powers during bail. The order requires surrender for interrogation on 18.11.2022 with conditions to ensure cooperation and non-tampering.
