CRL.M.C. No. 8496 of 2022 This is a Criminal Misc Case under section 482 CrPC filed to quash Annexure-A3 complaint in C.C. No. 995 of 2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court‑XII, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 3 are M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. and Sheeja Sunny, respectively, challenging the complaint on the ground that the 2nd petitioner is only an employee authorized signatory and has no day‑to‑day control over the company. They argued that even if a legally enforceable debt existed, any liability arising from the dishonoured cheque (Rs. 3,63,375) had already been settled by subsequent payments evidenced by Annexure A-4, including a Rs. 25,00,000 payment on 19.03.2019, thereby extinguishing the substratum of the case. They asserted that continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process and that quashing the proceedings would serve ends of justice. Respondents contended that bank remittances do not conclusively prove discharge of the specific cheque without Bank Manager evidence, and payments were made under an agreement and did not cover the disputed liability. The court examined the matter under the Nagawwa principles for quashing and, despite acknowledging the payments, held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed the Crl.M.C., upholding the trial process.
These writ petitions, heard together, challenge government orders denying regularization of Daily Labour Roll (DLR) workers of the Thrissur Corporation. Petitioners, recruited into service over a decade ago via a valid selection process, allege they were never considered for regularization despite long service. They point to Government Orders on absorption of DLR workers as Casual Labour Roll (CLR) personnel, which require sponsorship by the Employment Exchange, and contend that their cases warrant special consideration given prolonged and uninterrupted service. The petitioners highlight that the Kochi Corporation regularized a large number of similar workers, and Thrissur had prepared a list of 310 DLR workers and forwarded it to the Government for regularization; however, the request was rejected. They rely on Supreme Court precedents such as Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India, State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, and the Umadevi line of cases, arguing that regularization cannot be denied when proper selection processes were followed and where equal justice demands consideration. The court, while acknowledging the need to follow government orders and age-related limits, rules that the 310 DLR list must be evaluated in full, and those appointees who were recruited through a valid process should be considered for CLR regularization, even if over fifty, with appropriate notes. It directs the Thrissur Corporation to complete a credential review within four months, forward to the Director of Urban Affairs within two months, and obtain government concurrence within two months thereafter. The directions apply to petitioners and those in the 310 list, with future appointments continuing to adhere to Employment Exchange sponsorship requirements.
WP(CRL.) Nos. 102 of 2021 & 152 of 2021 This is a consolidated writ petition (Criminal) under COFEPOSA challenging preventive detention orders against two individuals, Sarith P.S. and Swapna Prabha Suresh, issued in 2020 by the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA. The detentions arose in a gold-smuggling investigation conducted through diplomatic baggage, with the detenues accused of assisting in clearance and transport of illicit gold. The petition grounds focus on procedural core: non-supply of documents bearing on the two NIA/ED cases relied upon in the grounds of detention, suppression of material facts by the Sponsoring Authority, and the fact that one detenue was in judicial custody at the time of detention. The petition also cites Article 22(5) and a host of precedents that a detaining authority must furnish material relied upon to arrive at the subjective satisfaction, and that failure to do so can vitiate detention. The court distinguishes several authorities, clarifying that only documents actually relied upon need be supplied and that non-supply of unrelated materials does not automatically invalidate detention. It also discusses the implications of a bail order (Ext. P9) not placed before the Detaining Authority. Ultimately, the court dismisses WP102 and allows WP152, quashing the detention there and directing release, while reaffirming constitutional safeguards and the need for careful application of preventive detention powers with due regard to personal liberty.
This matter arises from OP(KAT) No.115/2021, challenging Ext.P6 (16.3.2021) of OA 430/2020 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, which held that the petitioner’s seniority in the post of Assistant Engineer (PWD) should be reckoned from the date of joining duty, as per the Proviso to Rule 27(c) Part II KS & SSR, since he joined after the statutory three-month period and after a 10-day extension. The PSC had advised the petitioner (Annexure A1) in 2001, with appointment order (Annexure A2) in 2002, but he joined only on 16.01.2003 due to his obligation to remain with the Kerala State Electricity Board then. The Tribunal based its decision on Rule 27(c) and its Proviso, and also relied on a principle from a Supreme Court decision that seniority unchallenged for a reasonable time should not be unsettled (K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3086). The petitioner argued that seniority should be fixed from the date of effective PSC advice, not from joining, and thus Ext.P6 should be set aside. The High Court, after hearing, held that the Government’s order providing a ten-day joining window falls within the Proviso, and that the Tribunal’s reasoning is sound; consequently the petition is dismissed, upholding the Tribunal’s order and the later seniority fixation in terms of the proviso.
RFA Nos. 232/2018 and 330/2018 Regular First Appeal Nos. 232/2018 and 330/2018 were heard by the Kerala High Court arising from the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2017 in O.S. No. 224/2012 of the Subordinate Court, Thalassery. The appellants were V.A. Sivadasan (defendant) and the respondents V.P. Muraleedharan (plaintiff). On 10 December 2021 (heard on 10.12.2021 in both RFAs), the court recorded that the parties had amicably settled their dispute by a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, supported by affidavits and signatures including the respondent’s. Although the compromise had not been brought to notice of counsel earlier, the court accepted it and passed a decree in terms of the compromise, disposing of both appeals. The court noted the need to implement the compromise and incorporate its terms in the decree and directed refund of the entire court fee in view of the Apex Court’s position as stated in a Madras High Court decision, 2021 (2) KHC 62 (referred to as High Court authority). Appendices show the original compromise agreements dated 20.11.2021. The judgment thus records that the compromise will form part of the decree and that the matter is settled amicably out of court, with no further contest by the parties.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges Ext.P4, an order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of secured assets under the SARFAESI Act, as well as related steps leading to realisation of the loan. Petitioners claim they obtained a loan of Rs.20 lakhs by mortgaging a house where a residential building stands; the loan term expired on 04/09/2018. They contend that the 2nd respondent, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, drew a 400 kV transmission line through the property and that compensation awarded for this is inadequate. An award in District Court for Rs.33,32,094 with 9% interest was passed against the 2nd respondent; CPR No.191/2018 is pending, with no stay of that award. They request stay of Ext.P5 (notice by Advocate Commissioner) and seek to pay Rs.20,000 per month or to convert the liability into 30 monthly instalments until disposal of CPR 191/2018. The 1st respondent bank contends it has a direct contract with petitioners and no privity with the 2nd respondent; the loan’s term having expired, the notices and possession steps are in line with SARFAESI. The court surveys authorities on the availability of statutory remedies and the caution required in exercising writ jurisdiction, ultimately dismissing the petition as devoid of merit and allowing the creditor’s remedy to proceed under law.
Kanakalatha, the petitioner, is the first accused in C.C. No. 470/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad. The case stems from Crime No. 32/2012 of Aruvikkara police, relating to offences under IPC sections 120B, 422, 423, 424 and 188, and under Sections 81 and 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, all allegedly arising from a scheme hatched by three accused to defeat a creditor. On 04.07.2009, while serving as Sub Registrar of Karakulam Sub Registry, the petitioner registered Annexure R2(b) sale deed No. 1530 of 2009 in favour of the third accused, despite there being an attachment before judgment in favour of the second respondent in O.S. No. 376/2009, communicated to the Sub Registrar on 19.03.2009. The prosecution contends malafide and conspiracy, seeking criminal sanction under Cr.P.C. 197(1) for a public servant. The petitioner argues lack of sanction, public servant status under the Registration Act, and good faith; contends that endorsement of attachment is not a criminal breach and that non-endorsement is not a crime. The State and de facto complainant stress malafide intent and concealment of attachments. The High Court, however, finds no reasonable connection between the acts and the discharge of official duties; sanctions under 197(1) Cr.P.C. are not warranted. The petition is dismissed; the proceedings against the petitioner may continue under the ongoing criminal case.
CRL.M.C. No. 7635 of 2023 Shahul Hameed, the accused in SC No.382/2023 arising from Crime No.102/2020 of Kasaragod Police Station, seeks to quash the prosecution against him under Section 482 CrPC. The factual matrix is that the petitioner allegedly wrongfully confined and assaulted the victim, offences punishable under sections 341, 324 and 308 IPC. The parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to continue the prosecution. The victim has filed an affidavit supporting the settlement, and the victim’s counsel states the matter is settled with no objection. The Public Prosecutor acknowledges the settlement but initially expresses reservations about quashing solely on that ground. After considering submissions, the Court refers to Supreme Court jurisprudence—State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others; Gian Singh; Narinder Singh—to articulate the governing principle that Section 482 power can be exercised to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and civil in character and the parties have settled the entire dispute; however, such power must not be exercised for heinous offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity), offences under special statutes, or where public interest is involved. The court finds the dispute private, the settlement genuine, and the evidence sufficient to proceed only to the point of the charge. It thus allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes all further proceedings in S.C.No.382/2023.
This is a Criminal Original Petition (O.P.) at the Kerala High Court, arising from MC No.209/2020 in the Family Court, Ernakulam, concerning maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Jyothi Anthraper, the first petitioner, and her two minor children, Ethan Joseph Tomy and Joanna Maria Tomy, represented by their mother, seek substantial maintenance from their husband and father, Tomy Joseph. The petition initially sought Rs.50,000 per month for the first petitioner and Rs.25,000 per month for each child, with an interim maintenance prayer, which the Family Court granted as Rs.10,000 per month for each petitioner via Ext.P3. A controversy ensued because Ext.P3 was later alleged to have been handwritten and suo motu corrected to limit relief to petitioners 2 and 3, creating a dispute about the wording and scope of the order. The petition asserts that the court did not follow the Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, and that affidavits of disclosure should have been sought before issuing Ext.P3. The respondent contends his income and assets justify the interim grant. The High Court, after examining the report on the order’s alteration, observes the impropriety of the handwritten correction but holds that such illegality cannot defeat the objective of Section 125 CrPC. Ultimately, the Court directs Rs.10,000 per month interim maintenance for all three petitioners and orders the Family Court to finish disposal within four months.
Irshad, the accused in CC 917/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Nedumangad, sought to quash proceedings in Crime No. 828 of 2012 under the MMDR Act and IPC 430. The High Court of Kerala examines whether cognizance under the MMDR Act can be taken on a final police report (Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.) given Section 22 of the MMDR Act requires a complaint in writing by an authorized person. The petitioner contends that police cognizance is unauthorized, relying on Ismayil v. State of Kerala, PM Sumesh v. State of Kerala and Digil v. Sub Inspector of Police. The Public Prosecutor argues that the final report charges two offences, including a MMDR act offence, and that cognizance provisions include a special procedure for MMDR offences. The court reiterates the Rule that cognizance under the MMDR Act cannot be taken except on a complaint by an authorized person and that a police final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is insufficient. Citing Ismayil and Sumesh, the High Court holds that the cognizance taken in respect of MMDR offences is improper. The court also finds that the 430 IPC charge requires a “mischief” with destruction or alteration of property, which is not established here, thus quashing the final report and all further proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is allowed.
Tr.P.(Crl.) No.35/2023; S.C.No.461/2022 The Kerala High Court heard a transfer petition under Section 407 CrPC filed by accused Nos. 1 to 15 seeking to transfer S.C.No.461/2022 from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, I, Mavelikkara to any other court in the State. The petition contends a reasonable apprehension of unfair trial due to multiple perceived irregularities: non-furnishing of prosecution records (including CCTV clone copies and forensic reports), an identification process in which the deceased’s mother CW1 was asked to approach the dock and the accused were repeatedly called out by name and required to remove masks, a warning given to witnesses about identification, and a material change in charges read on 31.3.2023 without adequate notice or hearing. The accused faced additional distress from the death of their lead counsel and the court’s scheduling decisions. The petition cites prior transfers and directions to expedite trials, emphasizing the need to safeguard fairness in a high-profile murder case. The court analyzed the arguments against a transfer against the backdrop of established transfer jurisprudence, including the need for reasonable apprehension of bias and the convenience of justice. On consideration, the court found no substantiated basis for bias and concluded that transfer was unwarranted. The petition is dismissed, allowing the trial to proceed in the transferee court with safeguards for fair trial.
Vijayalakshmi filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the 2nd respondent, the Special Tahasildar (LR), to consider and pass orders in S.M. No.169/2021 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Tirurangadi. The petition concerns a suo motu proceeding initiated by the Land Tribunal under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970, for assignment of the landlord’s right, title and interest vested in the Government under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and for issuance of a certificate of purchase under Section 72K read with Rule 14, in respect of 18.60 acres of Re.Sy.No.53/6 in Ariyallur Village, Tirurangadi Taluk, Malappuram District. The petitioner argues that expeditious disposal is essential because many applicants discover the need for a purchase certificate only when approaching banks for loans, and delays frustrate loan funding and access to land benefits. The judgment refers to Narayanan Namboodiri v. The Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) and another (2018) for guidance on expeditious disposal and maintaining seniority of cases, noting the court’s directions to dispose senior citizen cases on priority and to obtain village officer reports when revenue inspectors are short. It also notes G.O.(P).No.09/2018/RD (22.02.2018) forming part of the judgment. The court ultimately disposes the petition by directing the Land Tribunal to dispose of S.M.No.169/2021 strictly in accordance with law, following Narayanan Namboodiri’s directions, with no order as to costs.
Sam Joseph, a 47-year-old assistant manager in IRCTC, challenged Ext P12, a rotational transfer order from Ernakulam to Bangalore, and sought exemption from transfer on compassionate grounds. He has a wife employed in the Postal Department and two children, including an elder son with autism who requires special education. He had repeatedly sought exemptions through Exts P4 and P5; Ext P6 (2018 Office Memorandum) and Ext P7 (2009 circular) provide broad protections for families with differently-abled children and for posting spouses at the same station. After his 2019–2020 attempts, the petitioner was transferred in June 2020 to Bangalore on administrative grounds, despite assurances in a prior writ petition (WPC 12805/2020) that his grievance would be examined. The petitioner contends that compassionate and policy-based exemptions under Exts P6 and P7 require continued posting at Ernakulam to care for his son, especially with online schooling. The respondents argue that transfer is an ordinary incident of service, not a vested right, and that Exts P6-P7 are guidelines, not mandatorily binding, and that the company faced staffing needs and could not accommodate in Kerala; Bangalore offers facilities for the child. The court relies on established transfer jurisprudence (Shilpi Bose; State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav; Somesh Tiwari; Union of India v. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit) and concludes there is no illegality in Ext P12; the petition is dismissed.
This is a criminal appeal by the accused, Thankachan S/O George, challenging a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court I, Pathanamthitta, in SC No.7/2004. On 20.12.1999, about 2 litres of arrack were allegedly found with the accused on a public road, leading to seizure and a trial in which the court sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000/-. The prosecution relied on a chain of evidence from the detecting officer to the Chemical Examiner. At trial, two independent witnesses turned hostile, and the defense argued that possession was not proven, and crucial link-evidence connecting the seized sample to the laboratory analysis was missing. The High Court’s analysis focused on whether the very sample analysed in the laboratory was the same sample drawn from the contraband, highlighting gaps: the specimen seal description was not proved; forwarding notes were not produced; no evidence of the seal’s nature or its tally with the lab sample; and lack of chain-of-custody documentation. Citing Rajamma, Gopalan, Bhaskaran, Krishnadas, and Valsala, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the requisite link evidence and thus the conviction could not stand. The appeal was allowed; the accused was acquitted and set at liberty.
This criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 Cr.P.C was heard by the Kerala High Court to quash the first information report in Crime No. 94/2016 of Thrithala Police Station. The petitioners, accused nos. 1 and 2, faced allegations of cheating under section 420 read with section 34 IPC arising from an agreement to sell property belonging to a college to the de facto complainant for a substantial sum. The complainant allegedly paid Rs.63,75,000 through cheques and was promised sale by 30.11.2015; however, the petitioners later refused to complete the sale, leading to criminal proceedings. The petition contends that the transaction between the parties was civil in nature and that even if the assertions are accepted as true, they do not meet the ingredients of cheating. The court notes that there is no allegation that the petitioners maliciously induced the de facto complainant to part with money, and a civil suit for injunction had been filed, indicating civil dispute resolution rather than criminal fraud. The judge cites Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. Narayan Singh (AIR 1999 SC 1480) to underscore the civil nature of the transaction. It is emphasized that merely failing to keep a promise cannot automatically amount to cheating; a dishonest intention must be shown at the time of inducement. Accordingly, the court exercised its power under section 482 Cr.P.C and quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the petitioners.
OP(KAT).No.362/2014; OP(KAT).No.381/2014; OP(KAT).No.125/2015 Two transferred applications (T.A.) were heard together, challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s common order in T.A. Nos. 747/2012 and 4052/2012, relating to seniority and promotion of staff in the Department of Tourism and Government Guest House cadre. The petitioners—A. Unnikrishnan, Ajith Kumar, and Baby Saroja E.—contended that their earlier appointments as Information Assistants were temporary and that their lien in the cadre of UDC and seniority in the Managerial cadre should be preserved, as previously recognized in related proceedings (notably O.P. No.20331/1998). The Tribunal’s directions to preserve seniority and grant promotions predating on the basis of seniority were relied upon by the petitioners to support their case for advancement to higher posts. Respondents submitted that challenging a common Tribunal order via multiple O.P.s was not permissible, citing Linsaraji v. State of Kerala (2018) and that the relief sought had to be considered within the scope of the Tribunal’s decisions. After considering the evidence and the law, the High Court held that interference with the Tribunal’s orders was not warranted, and upheld the petitioners’ lack of entitlement to further relief. The Court noted that the parties had already retired with promotions and ordered costs to be borne by the respective parties, with no further action required under the judgment.
Ummaya Hamza, a restaurant operator with a 21 cent land parcel and 22 metre road frontage on Mavoor Road in Kozhikode, challenged the Calicut Corporation’s reconstruction of drains and footpaths along the road. The dispute traces back to 2000 when the Public Works Department proposed raising the footpaths; the Court had earlier permitted slanting slabs to preserve ingress/egress (O.P. 4535/2000, Ext.P2). In 2020, after the Corporation proposed new public works, the petitioner approached this Court again (W.P. 12285/2020) contending that the works would affect ingress and egress rights; Ext.P6 directed the Corporation to consider the petitioner’s request for vehicular access along the entire road frontage, but Ext.P12 denied full frontage access. The petitioner claims a right to vehicular access across the entire frontage for parking, relying on common-law principles that adjoining landowners have private rights of access to a highway, which coexist with, but are subordinate to, the public right of passage. The Corporation argues the raised footpath is essential for pedestrian safety and drainage, and that allowing full frontage parking would obstruct pedestrians; the frontage includes a 7 metre width of access to a designated parking area, with building setbacks restricting further use. The Court held there is no illegality in the raised footpath, and that private access cannot override public rights and public interest, dismissing the petition.
This writ petition (WP(C) No.1201/2016) challenges continued inaction by the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University in absorbing petitioners in regular service for posts in which they are presently employed (Processing Associates and Plant Operation Associate in the Meat Technology Unit). The petitioners contend denial of absorption violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, arguing long service since 1995–2001 and reliance on past directions from this Court in related matters (including W.P.(C) No.29639/2010) and a precedent from W.P.(C) No.36138/2005, where similar claimants were regularised. Counsel for petitioners maintains they were selected through due process and deserve regularisation given ongoing service. The respondent University counters that regularisation requires creation of posts and adherence to established procedures; it submits a proposal to create posts and maintain ongoing service, supported by departmental correspondence. The Court, invoking the principle discussed in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, notes that one-time regularisation is permissible in appropriate circumstances. Consequently, the Court disposes of the petition by directing the second respondent (State/implementing authority) to consider the University’s proposal No.KVASU/GA/A3/10910/2020 dated 03.02.2021 and pass orders within four months, directing the petitioners to furnish certified copies for compliance.
This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC by four petitioners in Crime No. 282/2020 of Rajapuram Police Station, Kasaragod, alleging offences including 363, 354A(i), 354D, and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The prosecution asserts that on 17.07.2020 the first petitioner took the victim girl to his house; the victim later returned with her parents after contact by them. The petitioners contend that they are the parents (petitioners 1 & 2) and friends (petitioners 3 & 4) of the first accused; the first accused was in love with the victim, who was two to three months short of attaining majority, and there was no criminal intent; they were not aware that the victim was a minor and immediately allowed her to go with her parents upon being contacted. They express willingness to abide any conditions and to cooperate with the investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposed unconditional bail but suggested stringent conditions if granted. The court cites the precept that bail is the rule and jail the exception, referencing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870) and directions from the Supreme Court on COVID-19, to justify granting bail with safeguards. After hearing both sides, the court, taking into account the pandemic context and the circumstances, allows the bail with six conditions, including appearance for interrogation, bonds, travel restrictions, and adherence to social distancing norms.
The petition, filed by Bank of Baroda (the mortgagee) and a subsequent auction purchaser, seeks a declaration that a revenue-recovery attachment effected on a property in Bare Village, Kasaragod, is non-est and cannot affect the marketability of the property, with a prayer to erase the attachment and mutate title in favor of the auction purchaser. The bank had extended a housing loan to Thahira P.A., who encumbered the property by equitable mortgage in 2015. After default, SARFAESI proceedings led to the sale on 04.05.2023 in favor of the second petitioner (auction purchaser), who remitted the full sale amount and obtained sale certificate (Ext. P2). When attempting mutation, respondents raised revenue-recovery attachments based on a loan by the fourth respondent bank (Ext. P4, P5). The petition contends that attachments created after the equitable mortgage should be effaced post-sale, citing Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar (and the affirmed line in Ali Asharaf M.M. and Keechery Service Co-operative Bank) that such attachments do not affect title or marketability and must be erased to prevent a perpetual encumbrance. The court relies on these authorities, holding that post-mortgage attachments must be effaced and mutation should be effected. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to mutate in favor of the second petitioner within one month; no costs."
