This High Court of Kerala bail petition concerns Maneesh Mohan, accused in Crime No.79/2025 of Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station, Alappuzha, charged under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 for offences including Section 333, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 110. The petitioner seeks bail under Section 482 BNSS. The prosecution alleges trespass and assault with a steel bangle causing head injury. The petitioner contends that, even if the allegations are true, Section 110 of the BNS is not attracted, and expresses willingness to comply with any conditions. The Public Prosecutor reports no criminal antecedents per IO information. The court reviews the bail principle, noting that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that arrest decisions must be justified rather than routine, citing established precedents such as Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Joginder Kumar. The court recognizes that Section 110’s applicability is a matter for investigation and notes that the offence under Section 118(1) carries a maximum sentence of three years, with no antecedents. Relying on these authorities, the court grants bail with stringent conditions including appearance before the IO on Mondays at 10 AM, a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, travel constraints, non-communication inducements, and non-leave-India restrictions, among others. The order stipulates that the decision is specific to this bail application and cites Anzar Azeez and Sushila Aggarwal for related principles. The judgment is delivered by P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
This writ appeal challenges the learned Single Judge’s 25.02.2025 order in WP(Crl) No.839 of 2024, which refused Amal Nisham’s prayer for parole for her husband, Mohammed Nisham, a life convict undergoing imprisonment at the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Viyyur. The appellant outlines that the convict has been in custody since 2015 with only brief interim bail on a few occasions and has not engaged in criminal activity during releases. A favorable Probation Officer report supports parole, and arbitration proceedings between the convict and his siblings are pending; the only impediment cited is an adverse police report claiming potential law-and-order disruption. It is submitted that the parole would be a temporary, controlled release to enable personal and family settlement and to allow the convict to instruct counsel in ongoing legal proceedings, while permitting strict monitoring and conditions. The respondents contend that parole requires a favorable police report and caution that the family dispute and past disciplinary acts justify denial. The court recalls Section 36 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 (Rights of prisoners) and Section 73 (Release on Parole), and Rules 397, 400, and 404 of the Kerala Rules, underscoring rehabilitation as a legitimate objective and the judiciary’s power to review refusals if grounds are extraneous. The appeal is allowed, directing parole for 15 days with conditions.
This writ petition filed by City View Tourism, represented by its managing partner, challenges the debit freeze Imposed on its bank account No. 0966073000000198 by the 4th respondent bank, allegedly pursuant to a police requisition. The petitioner contends that the freezing action is illegal and arbitrary and seeks a direction to lift the debit freeze so that the account can be transacted beyond the amount frozen ( Rs. 1,000 as claimed by the bank). The matter was heard with submissions from the petitioner’s counsel, the Government Pleader, and the bank’s counsel. The court references Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024) 1 KLT 826 and Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768), noting that the freezing should be confined to the amount mentioned in the police order and that police authorities must inform the banks whether continued freezing is required and for how long, within a specified period. The judgment also relies on State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen, to underscore the necessity of timely reporting under S.102 Cr.P.C. (now S.106 BNSS) and related safeguards. Consequently, the court directs the bank to limit the freeze to the specified amount, await police information on continuance, and lift the freeze if no information is provided within two months, preserving the petitioners’ right to approach the court again if needed.
The petitioner, Jaris Methar, is an accused in Crime No.1444/2024 of Kalady Police Station, Ernakulam, facing an offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. The bail petition, filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., challenges the custody regime during investigation. The defacto complainant, an international cabin crew member, alleges a relationship formed on promises of marriage; she contends that the petitioner, who is married, sought to marry and they engaged in sexual relations at multiple places. The prosecution relies on the First Information Statement indicating continuous relationship and awareness by the complainant of the petitioner’s marital status, suggesting a nexus to the alleged false promise. The petitioner’s counsel submits that even if the facts are accepted, the relationship was consensual and the petitioner is willing to comply with stringent conditions for bail. The Public Prosecutor counters, submitting that the relationship and the promise of marriage show a deliberate plan constituting a serious offence and warrants custodial investigation.
The Court relies on Supreme Court guidance in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. and Manish Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh to assess whether a consensual relationship can be a vitiating factor. It also cites Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh to emphasize personal liberty and the presumption in favor of bail, subject to conditions. The judge concludes custodial interrogation is unnecessary and grants bail with conditions: appearance before IO for two consecutive days, bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, and travel restrictions. The order notes bail as the norm and jail as the exception, with the possibility of cancellation for violation. The principle of protecting personal liberty underlies the decision, echoed by Anzar Azeez and Sushila Aggarwal. The bail is allowed with specific directions.
This High Court of Kerala Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 1869 of 2025) concerns accused Nandakishore P.B. and Bindu seeking quashment of Crime No. 1020/2023 of Perambra Police Station (now CC No. 355/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perambra) for offences under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC. The petition is premised on an amicable settlement between the parties and an affidavit by the defacto complainant Abhima V.J. stating disputes have been resolved and she has no objection to quashing the case. The court first sought and recorded the defacto complainant’s statement, then found the settlement genuine and bonafide. It noted the likelihood of conviction is low given the resolution of disputes and the absence of compelling reasons to proceed. Relying on the ratio in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, as well as the Karnataka v. Muniswamy decision, the court accepted that ends of justice can trump mere legal procedure, even where offences under 498A/406 are involved. It observed that 406 is compoundable and that forcing continued proceedings would amount to abuse of process. The court highlighted that the settlement is genuine and bonafide, and that quashing would secure ends of justice. Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is allowed; Annexure A (F.I.R.), Annexure B (final report) and all further proceedings in CC 355/2024 are quashed. The order directs the Perambra JMFC to discharge the proceedings.
W.P (Crl.) No. 314 of 2025 This is a High Court of Kerala writ petition (criminal) under Article 226 challenging Ext.P1 detention order dated 28.12.2024 issued under the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, against the detenu, the husband of the petitioner. The detenu had previously been detained under a 2024 order which was revoked on 03.06.2024 following an adverse Advisory Board opinion. After release, the detenu allegedly committed new crimes in 2024, and a report dated 06.12.2024 by the District Police Chief recommended fresh preventive detention. The detention order was issued on 28.12.2024 and executed on 31.12.2024; the Government approved it on 17.02.2025 after the Advisory Board reported there was sufficient cause for detention. The petitioner contends: (i) the detaining authority did not arrive at requisite subjective satisfaction and did not duly consider the earlier revocation, (ii) procedural lapses from the earlier order were not rectified in the new order, (iii) non-disclosure or limited disclosure of the Advisory Board’s report undermines fairness, (iv) a delay of over two months between the last prejudicial act (18.09.2024) and the order undermines the live-link principle, (v) that previous precedents require more transparency. The State counters that confidentiality and the detenu’s custody justify the course and rely on established precedents. The Court ultimately dismisses the petition, upholding the detention order, and clarifies confidentiality and live-link principles and the binding nature of AB opinions.
The Kerala High Court hears a writ petition by Abdul Basith MK challenging the debit freeze imposed on his bank account No. 0616053000010618 by the 2nd respondent bank, allegedly pursuant to a police requisition from the 3rd respondent. The petitioner contends that the freeze is illegal and arbitrary, and seeks immediate lifting of the freeze so that he can operate his account. The bank places the dispute on Rs. 3,00,000 as the frozen amount, with additional requisitions totalling Rs. 3,50,000. The Court recalls an earlier decision in W.P(C) No.40023/2024 directing the bank to lift the freeze within two months from that judgment. It also relies on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), which directs that freezes should be confined to the amounts specified in police orders and that police authorities must inform banks whether continued freezing is required, within a stated timeframe. The Court also cites Nazeer K.T v. Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768), which aligns with these principles, emphasizing timely information from police and a process that enables petitioners to transact beyond the freeze limit. In light of these authorities, the Court directs that the freezing be limited to the ordered amount, police inform banks about continuation, and, if no information is received within the prescribed period, banks shall lift the debit freeze. The petition is disposed accordingly.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.M.C. No.1607 of 2025) before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, arising from Crime No.1646/2024 registered at Muvattupuzha Police Station. The petitioner, Naveen Gopal, injured in the incident of 22.08.2024, seeks quashing of the final report in the case now pending as CP No.4/2025 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Muvattupuzha. The prosecution asserts that the offence involves serious considerations under Section 109(1) of the BNS and Section 27(1) r/w Section 5(1) of the Arms Act, and that resolution of the dispute through settlement does not ordinarily warrant quashing. The petitioner claims that the 3rd respondent, a close relative, fired accidentally while handling a licensed pistol; the injury was sustained, and an affidavit narrating true facts was admitted by the Sessions Court during bail. The settlement between the parties, absence of public interest, and the fact that the case hinges on an accidental firing support a relief, as argued by the petitioner. The State counters that the offences are grave and settlement should not derail the proceedings. The court relies on Naushey Ali v. State of U.P and the decisions in Madan Mohan Abbot and Gian Singh to justify relief. The Court eventually allows the Crl.M.C, quashing the final report and all further proceedings against the 3rd respondent.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.1462 of 2025) filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by the sole accused, Shihabudheen M, challenging proceedings in Crime No.573/2022 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod, now pending as CC No.1859/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceedings on the ground that the dispute between him and the de facto complainant, Fathima R., has been amicably settled. On 17.03.2025, after recording the defacto complainant’s statement, the court found that the issues between the parties are settled, the de facto complainant has remarried, and she has no objection to quashing the proceedings. Annexure-AIII contains an affidavit by the 2nd respondent confirming the settlement. The court relied on established precedents (B.S. Joshi; Gian Singh) holding that, although offences like 498A are non-compoundable under 320 IPC, the High Court can quash proceedings under its inherent power if the ends of justice demand it and there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction due to the settlement. The court concluded that quashing the final report and all further proceedings would prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, given the genuine and bonafide nature of the settlement. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the proceedings are quashed.
I.T.A.No.48/2020 and connected cases (I.T.A.Nos.48/2020, 46/2020, 47/2020, 49/2020, 51/2020, 54/2020, 55/2020, 56/2020, 68/2020) and I.T.A.No.6/2021 This is a consolidated Kerala High Court judgment disposing of nine Income Tax Appeals (I.T.A. Nos. 48/2020, 46/2020, 47/2020, 49/2020, 51/2020, 54/2020, 55/2020, 56/2020, 68/2020) arising from a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Cochin Bench) dated 30.09.2019. The core controversy concerns the Carmel Educational Trust and related trustees who, through a 2009–2010 arrangement with Believers Church, relinquished trusteeship and received substantial sums. The Tribunal held that these receipts were not taxable as capital gains, treating them as non-taxable, while some related issues were addressed as construction receipts. The High Court, in a unanimous common judgment, held that the relinquishment of trusteeship involves a capital asset with potential capital gains implications, and that the Tribunal erred in certain aspects, particularly in treating the relinquishment receipts as non-taxable and in the approach to cost of acquisition. The Court remanded several appeals for reconsideration and remanded on questions (i)–(iv) in I.T.A. Nos. 46/2020, 48/2020, 49/2020, 51/2020; while dismissing other appeals (54/2020, 55/2020, 56/2020, 68/2020 and 6/2021) in favour of the revenue, and canvassed the proper tax treatment under sections 45, 55(2), 48, 49 and the applicable heads of income. The judgment also underscores the mutual exclusivity of income heads and the need to assess the relinquishment as a potential capital receipt consistent with the governing statutory provisions and precedents.
This Review Petition challenges the High Court’s judgment in OP(C)2768/2023, which directed the Sub Judge, Kottayam, to hear an amendment application (Ext.P5) and the leave petition under Section 92 CPC, at the earliest. The petitioners contend that Ext.P2, an order in OP(C)No.1232/2023 relied upon to justify the review, either did not exist at the time of filing or was improperly pressed into service to secure the judgment under review. They allege suppression of material facts—specifically Annexure-1 (order dated 20.06.2023) and Annexure-2 (judgment dated 31.07.2023)—and contend that the court was misled. In response, respondents submit that Ext.P2 was not the sole document; notices under Section 92 had been issued to many respondents, and that it is not mandatory to serve all respondents before grant of leave, citing the Supreme Court’s framing in RM Narayana Chettiar & Another v. Lakshmanan Chettiar. After hearing, the court finds clear suppression of facts by the petitioners and notes that Ext.P2 was modified by Annexure-1 and Annexure-2. Consequently, the judgment in OP(C)2768/2023 is recalled, and the Original Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000 to KELSA, payable within three weeks, with recovery as arrears of land revenue if unpaid. The order underscores strict adherence to full disclosure in review petitions and the proper application of Section 92 leave.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.1902 of 2025) concerns Rajesh, the sole accused in Crime No.862/2022 of Kottarakkara Police Station, who seeks quashment of CC No.136/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kottarakkara, under Section 482 CrPC. The defacto complainant (3rd respondent) and the Public Prosecutor joined proceedings, with the court recording the defacto complainant’s statement indicating disinterest in pursuing the case and supporting settlement. An annexed notarized affidavit (Annexure-3) asserts that the dispute has been amicably settled out of court and that the defacto complainant has no objection to quashing. The offence alleged in the FIR is under Section 354 IPC; the Final Report in CC No.136/2023 is quashed along with all further proceedings. The court cites Kulwinder Singh (and Others) v. State of Punjab and Another (2007) 4 CTC 769, approved by Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, and relying on Madan Mohan Abbot to adopt a common-sense approach that disputes of a personal nature, or those resolved by a bona fide settlement, may justify quashing non‑compoundable offences to secure ends of justice. The Court ultimately holds that continuing proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process, and accordingly allows the Crl.M.C., quashing Annexure-2 Final Report and CC No.136/2023.
WP(C).39559/2022; WP(C).15379/2024; WP(C).21828/2024 These three writ petitions are consolidated before a single judge of the Kerala High Court and challenge an Ombudsman order and related licensing actions by the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. The petitioners, A. Dwaraj and Rajesh R, operate businesses subject to local licensing. W.P.(C.) No. 39559/2022 challenges Ext.P4, the Ombudsman’s order dated 14.06.2022 directing the corporation not to issue a licence unless the complainant or his brother applies. W.P.(C.) No. 15379/2024 seeks a direction to consider the licence renewal application without regard to that order. W.P.(C.) No. 21828/2024, filed by the petitioners in 15379/2024 and 39559/2022, seeks quashing Ext.P10 dated 30.04.2024 in pursuance of Ext.P9 (15.01.2024) in another related matter and, if granted, renewal of the trade licence without the consent of co-owners. The Court emphasizes procedural compliance with Rule 146 proviso of the Kerala High Court Rules, 1971, noting non-disclosure of pendency of earlier petitions as a serious abuse of process. Relying on District Collector, Palakkad v. Devayani and Babu C.G. v. South Indian Bank Ltd., the Court reiterates the need for clean hands in invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Ultimately, the petitions are disposed of by withdrawal or dismissal, interim relief is vacated, and costs are imposed to be paid to the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
This Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment concerns a criminal appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, filed by Kalidas (A-1) challenging a Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, order dismissing his bail application in SC No.02/21/NIA/KOC. The prosecution case traces to Edakkara Police, based on disclosures during investigation in another crime, alleging that the appellant organized an armed training camp in 2016 in Karulai forest to further CPI (Maoist) activities with arms. The matter was transferred to the Anti Terrorist Squad and ultimately to the NIA, which submitted a final report. Offences include IPC sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122; Kerala Forest Act, 1961, Section 27(1)(e)(iv); Arms Act, Section 7 read with Section 27(2); and UAPA sections 18, 18A, 20, 38, 39; with Section 43D(5) UAPA cited in denial of bail. Arrested in 2017, the appellant has remained in custody for nearly eight years; the final report was filed in 2015, and some 274 witnesses are cited, though trial progress is uncertain. The NIA argues that the case involves grave anti-national offences and that 19 other cases heighten security concerns; the defense argues prolonged detention violates Article 21 (Right to Life) and that Section 43D(5) cannot bar bail where liberty is at stake. The High Court surveys Shaheen Welfare Assn., Kartar Singh, Najeeb, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, Gurwinder Singh, Javed Iqbal, Athar Parwez, and Thwaha Fasal to address the balance between national security and individual liberty, concluding that bail is warranted where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, and accordingly allows the appeal, granting bail with conditions.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case before a Kerala High Court single judge arising from Crime No. 940/2021 (Alappuzha South Police Station), now pending as CC 409/2022, in which the sole accused, Madhusoodhana Padmanabhan @ Madhu, seeks to quash the FIR and the ongoing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioner contends that an amicable settlement has been reached with the defacto complainant, Chitra, as a result of talks between the petitioner’s wife and the complainant. The wife has requested that the criminal proceedings not be pursued, and the petitioner tendered a written apology; the defacto complainant has sworn an affidavit (Annexure-A3) stating she has no objection to quashing, and the court records reflect her statement supporting settlement. The 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) also endorses quashment. The court relies on established guidelines from Kulwinder Singh (2007) and subsequent Supreme Court decisions Gian Singh (2012), Narinder Singh (2014) and Madan Mohan Abbot (2008), emphasizing that disputes of a personal nature may be resolved by compromise to conserve judicial resources and that quashing is permissible when ends of justice are served and the settlement is genuine. The court also notes that the offence under Section 341 IPC is compoundable, reinforcing the acceptability of compromise. In light of these parameters, the court holds that further proceedings would be futile and would amount to abuse of process, and accordingly allows the Crl.M.C., quashing the final report in Crime No. 940/2021 and all proceedings in CC 409/2022.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 626 OF 2018 This criminal revision petition challenges a Sessions Court order that enhanced the sentence of Valayangadan Jithesh for offences under IPC sections 279 (rash and negligent driving), 338 (causing grievous hurt by endangering life or personal safety), and 304A (death by negligence) arising from CC 308/2005 (Kuthuparamba). The accused, who had pleaded guilty before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, was convicted with sentences: fine for 279 and 338, and imprisonment till rising plus a ₹5,000 fine for 304A. The State preferred an appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, which ultimately enhanced the 304A sentence to one year of simple imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine. The revision petition contends that Section 377(3) Cr.P.C mandates giving the accused a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such enhancement, which did not occur. The State counters that since the accused pleaded guilty, a hearing was unnecessary for enhancement. The Kerala High Court examines Section 377 Cr.P.C, noting that while enhancement is permissible, it cannot occur without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. Relying on Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan, Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, and Kumar Ghimirey v. State of Sikkim, the Court concludes that the absence of notice renders the enhancement unsustainable and remands the matter to the Sessions Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after granting such opportunity. The order directs transmission of records and a fresh hearing date (10.4.2025).
Bail Appl. No.3368 of 2025 Rajeev M, the petitioner and first accused, seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No.1018/CB/TVM/R/2024 (Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram) arising from the Thumba Police Station case (originally registered as Cr. No. 538/2024). The prosecution alleges that he conspired with others to cheat the Government by fabricating false documents to obtain a passport, presenting them to the Regional Passport Authority, with a police officer allegedly pressuring a favorable report. The investigation was transferred from the police to the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau at a later stage, and offences under IPC sections 120B, 201, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471, along with Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, were invoked, with later additions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (sections 7(c) and 13(1)(b)). The Sessions Court declined pre-arrest bail, relying on Jai Prakash Singh, HDFC Bank v. Mannan, and Srikant Upadhyay, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the need to secure evidence. The High Court, while noting the case’s seriousness, found the documents seized and the investigation at an initial stage; the petitioner cooperates, and anticipatory bail in respect of another accused has been granted. The court granted pre-arrest bail with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent flight or tampering. The order underscores balancing investigative needs with individual liberty.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3515 OF 2025 Abdul Rasheed, a 27-year-old petitioner, filed Bail Application No. 3515 of 2025 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before the Kerala High Court, seeking bail in Crime No. 96 of 2024 of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thrissur. The charge sheet and materials allege a large-scale online scam in which the accused purportedly befriended a victim by impersonating directors of a fictitious company, Gold Man Sachs, invited the victim to a WhatsApp group, and induced a sequence of investments totalling Rs 57,09,620 through 17 bank transactions between 25.06.2024 and 09.08.2024. Only a portion of the funds was returned; the remainder, including the profits, was not. The prosecution pleads offences under IPC section 420, IT Act section 66D, and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The matter was argued on 28.03.2025 following a prior order directing the petitioner to appear for interrogation and delaying arrest pending the IO’s report. The court reiterates the primacy of bail as a rule and custodial detention as an exception, citing Chidambaram and Siddharth to emphasize personal liberty. It notes surrendered status and a recorded statement, suggests custodial interrogation may be unnecessary, and outlines conditions for bail: appearance for interrogation within two weeks; if arrest is contemplated, bail on bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties; no leaving India; prohibition on new offences; cooperation with investigation; and potential cancellation of bail for breach. The decision reflects a careful balancing of investigative needs with individual liberty.
This Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 74 of 2024) is before the Kerala High Court, challenging the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 43 of 2012 of the Munsiff Court, Sulthan Bathery, confirmed by AS 30 of 2020 dated 30.06.2023. The dispute centers on a plaint schedule property originally assigned by document No. 352/1984 of the Sulthan Bathery SRO. The plaintiff, in possession, entered a sale agreement with the defendant, who then occupied the property and dispossessed the plaintiff, prompting earlier litigation. The plaintiff's suit OS 73/1999 (later OS 279/2011) was decreed in 2003; the defendants challenged it in Sub Court Sulthan Bathery (AS No. 25/2005) and RSA 1423/2013, with Roma remand and ex parte decrees following. After a long procedural history, delivery of possession and subsequent dispossession by the defendants led to the present second appeal. The principal legal issue is whether the suit is maintainable under Sec. 47 CPC given the existence of an earlier decree and its delivery. The appellants argued Sec. 47 bars the suit; the courts below rejected this. The High Court ultimately held that there is no substantial question of law to admit the second appeal, reiterating that the true test for a second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC is the existence of a substantial question of law, which must be formulated. The appeal is dismissed, and all interlocutory applications are also dismissed.
CRL.M.C. NO. 2048 OF 2024 This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 2048 of 2024) before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam. The sole accused, Shantheeshlal T., is under investigation for offences under Section 15(1) POCSO Act and Section 67B IT Act in Crime No. 911 of 2020 (Payyannur Police Station, Kannur), with the case later re-numbered as S.C. No. 463 of 2022 before the Additional District Court & Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod. The petitioner seeks to quash the final report under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the prosecution has not established the essential ingredients of the alleged offences: that pornographic material involving a child was stored with an intention to share or transmit (POCSO 15(1)) and that the accused published, transmitted or facilitated access to such material (IT Act 67B). The court examined the materials and noted that while pornographic material involving a child was recovered, there was no evidence showing that the accused shared, transmitted or published it. Relying on Manuel Benny and Aneesh, the court held that mere possession or private viewing does not satisfy the requisite ingredients, and that no prima facie case is made out for either offence. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the final report and further proceedings were quashed.
