This is a Writ Appeal (WA No. 1009 of 2021) filed by the State of Kerala and its Backward Classes Development Department challenging the interim stay granted by the Kerala High Court on the Government Order G.O.(MS) No. 2/2021/BCDD, dated 6 February 2021, which included Nadars belonging to Christian denominations other than SIUC in the State OBC list for education and employment reservations. The State argued that post-102nd Amendment and the 105th Amendment, States are empowered to prepare and maintain their own SEBC lists, and that the inclusion of Christian Nadars (excluding SIUC) was a valid exercise of this power. The respondents are S. Kutappan Chettiar, Akshay S. Chandran, and the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes, who challenged the order on grounds including lack of consequential amendments to the KS&S Rules and potential contravention of the central framework for SEBCs. The court considered the constitutional amendments (102nd and 105th), the central list framework (Articles 338B, 342A, 366(26C)), and relevant Supreme Court precedents, notably Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (Marathas Reservation), and Hindu Seva Kendram. The court ultimately held that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dismissed the writ appeal, but left open the possibility of any subsequent central-government notification affecting the matter and permitted the state to bring further materials to the writ court’s notice.
The petitioner, ShahinaJ Ali Alavi, an aspirant for the post of Assistant Professor in Education, challenged the local advertisement Ext.P4 dated 08.08.2021 for the post of Assistant Professor in Education, contending that the qualification fixed by the University deviates from the NCTE Regulations, 2014. The 2014 Regulations specify three qualifications for the post: (i) a postgraduate degree with minimum 55% marks in the discipline relevant to the area of specialization; (ii) a postgraduate degree in Education (M.Ed/MA Education) with minimum 55% marks; or (iii) any other qualification prescribed by UGC such as NET. However, the advertisement purportedly required a Ph.D. in Education at entry level, creating a dispute about compliance with NCTE norms. Petitioner argued that the 2017 amendment to NCTE Regulations modified Appendix 4 and 13, removing Ph.D as a mandatory entry qualification, while UGC Regulations 2018 introduced a proviso that in the absence of NCTE norms, UGC norms apply. The University contends that a university may fix higher qualifications than those laid down by the regulator and relied on precedents upholding this prerogative. The court examined amendments, noted that NCTE remains the regulatory yardstick, but found that the University’s prerogative to fix higher qualifications prevails in this case, since the petitioner did not file a timely application. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
This Regular First Appeal arises from O.S. No. 455 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, challenging partition and relief under a WILL of late Dr. K. G. Sukumaran. The appellants, comprising P. Ushakumari, P.J. Jayasree, P.J. Rajesh, and P.R. Jayan Devan, seek a share in the ancestral property and moveable assets as per the will, against the respondents who include the legal heirs of Ratnam, Rajamma, and Mohanam, such as P.S. Nagamma, P.S. Nargis, Geetha P.M., Ranjith P.S., and others. The matter has long pendency with subsequent additions of R6 and R7 as legal heirs of a deceased party. The registry records a compromise/deal arrived at between the parties, which is produced with I.A. No. 1/2021. The court accepts the settlement and disposes of the appeal in terms of the agreement; the settlement provides for three equal shares among the heirs and for transfer of bank deposits across multiple banks via NEFT/RTGS, via a joint Canara Bank account held in the names of Usha Kumari, Nagamma, and Geetha as representatives. It also details owelty payments prior to transfers, demarcation of the property at survey No. 278/10, and mutations in the title. The decree will reflect the settlement and include provisions for repayment to employees and other expenses. The court orders that court fees be refunded in light of the settled position, and directs execution of documents to finalize partition and mutation. The matter thus settles out of court and ends with terms of settlement forming part of the judgment.
WP(C) Nos.15143/2021, 15902/2021, 17394/2021 These writ petitions arise from a civil dispute over a loan secured by a JCB vehicle allegedly financed by Sakthi Finance Limited. The petitioner, Suniladevi P.S., contends that after making payments until February 2020, the Covid-19 lockdown disrupted her ability to continue EMI payments. On 23 July 2021, the vehicle was reportedly stolen from a public place near Vaikom; the petition asserts police inaction and seeks a writ directing the Station House Officer to repossess the vehicle from the financier and to restore possession to her. The financier submits that the loan was restructured on 30 September 2020, with an agreement that three consecutive EMI defaults would compel return of the vehicle; despite defaults, the vehicle was surrendered and then repossessed in a lawful manner, without force or dishonest intent, and after prior notice. The State and police contend the matter is civil and not criminal, noting that moratoriums do not apply to private lenders. The court, noting common questions and parties across the three petitions, directs mediation while acknowledging the pandemic context, but ultimately dismisses all petitions with no costs. The judgment emphasizes that the dispute is essentially contractual; while moral considerations exist, there is no prima facie case of criminal theft or wrongdoing by the financier. Ultimately, the court disposes of the matter by dismissal of the writ petitions.
This is a bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 6697/2021) by Shiju V., the sole accused in crime No.580/2021 of Bakel Police Station, Kasaragod district, registered under IPC sections 366 and 376(2)(n). The prosecution alleges that from May 2021 onwards the accused enticed a defacto complainant, a married woman with two children, to marry him, abducted her from her residence, and took her to his paternal home where he allegedly engaged in repeated sexual intercourse after promising to marry her. A ‘thali’ was tied in front of his father’s photo, signaling an intent to marry, and the acts reportedly continued on a semi-regular basis. The defense argues that the complainant’s marriage is subsisting, so the promise-to-marry element cannot attract 376 IPC; that the sexual relations were voluntary and not the result of misrepresentation; that the case is at the investigation stage and the accused should not be arrested without necessity. The Public Prosecutor contends the offence is grave and there is a likelihood of repeating such acts or influencing witnesses; a potency test and seizure of the auto-rickshaw used for kidnapping are necessary; custodial interrogation is essential. The court, after considering the gravity and stage of investigation, refused pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that releasing the accused would hinder investigation and send a wrong societal message.
The petitioners, V.K. Abdul Hameed and Laila Hameed, hold adjoining lands in Cheranelloor Village classified as Nilam (paddy land) in revenue records. Their assignor obtained permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 to convert the land for cultivation of other crops or purposes; Ext.P2 records this order as final. Despite the permission, the land was not reclaimed, and the petitioners allowed a contractor to dump waste from the Vallarpadom International Transshipment Terminal on portions of their lands; Ext.P10 granted by the District Collector authorized this dumping. Respondents 8 and 9 challenged this under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008), leading to Ext.P15, which stayed and ultimately set aside Ext.P10. The petition challenged Ext.P15, claiming the lands could still be reclaimed or utilized as per Ext.P2 notwithstanding the Act. The High Court, relying on established precedents including Kaipadath Property Development Co. (Pvt) Ltd v State of Kerala and leading Supreme Court authorities, held that rights accrued under the Land Utilisation Order cannot be nullified by the 2008 Act and that Ext.P15 was unsustainable. The Court quashed Ext.P15 and declared that the petitioners are entitled to reclaim or convert the lands in accordance with Ext.P2, notwithstanding the Act.
Ayisabi and others, legal representatives of Abdulrahiman @ Koya, challenge the 13.03.2007 award of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(M.V) No.1725/1999, arising from a fatal bus collision on 04.04.1999. The deceased, aged 70, a mosque visitor who was walking along the road, was fatally injured when bus KL-10F-9243 overtook and struck him. The Tribunal held the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the bus driver and awarded Rs.60,000 as total compensation, after deducting interim under Section 140 MV Act; the insurer defended with license- and contributory-negligence grounds, contesting quantum and headwise awards while admitting the policy. The appellants contended for higher compensation under conventional heads and based on the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi doctrine (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi) for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, and for raising the deceased’s notional income. The High Court, applying Pranay Sethi, recalculated: monthly income Rs.2,000; multiplier 5; loss of consortium Rs.44,000 per head for five dependents; loss of estate and funeral Rs.16,500 each; total enhanced compensation Rs.2,84,000 with 7.5% interest from the date of petition until realization. It also directed recovery of the excess from the vehicle owner and driver and demanded payment within two months, with court-fee adjustments. The decision aligns with evolving MACA jurisprudence on compensatory heads.
WP(C) 40794/2022 & connected cases This common judgment, heard together with connected writ petitions, concerns minors participating in the Kerala School Kalolsavam, an annual state arts festival conducted under the General Education Department. The petitions challenge the Revenue District Level Kalolsavams’ results and the subsequent appeals process, arguing that stage arrangements, lighting, sound systems, and even alleged extraneous considerations affected performance and marks. The petitioners, many represented by guardians due to minority status, sought to participate in the State Kalolsavam (January 2023) and/or to have the appellate decisions re-evaluated. The Kerala Kalolsavam Manual governs competition at four levels (School, Sub-District, Revenue District, State) and provides for an Appeals Committee with prescribed procedures and a non-revaluation posture. The court reiterates that while internal mechanisms (judges’ evaluation and the Appeals Committee) may be criticized, Article 226 court intervention is limited: it cannot re-assess merit or substitute judgments of competent judges except for gross illegality or mala fides. The judgment cites Rhomy Chandra Mohan and Sweety to emphasise the finality of judge and committee decisions, and also Manas Manohar and Anagha to caution against broad interim permissions that disrupt scheduling. Ultimately, the petitions are dismissed, but the court directs better stage safety and manuals reforms to prevent future mishaps and to safeguard minors’ well-being and participation.
W.P.(C). No. 26607 of 2021 This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext. P2, a notice issued by the 4th respondent demanding arrears of rent from the petitioner for four leased rooms in Kalangara Memorial Building owned by the Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner, who runs a hotel in the leased premises (Ext. P1 dated 01.05.2017), contends that the Covid-19 induced closures and government restrictions forced him to suspend operations from March 2020 to October 2020 and again from March 2021 to September 2021, rendering him not liable to pay rent for those periods. He seeks quashing Ext. P2 and a mandamus to permit remittance of rent excluding the closure durations. The respondents contend the petitioner is bound by Ext. P1 to pay monthly rent and interest (12% per annum as per clause (ii)) for defaults, and that the contractual obligation cannot be invoked to avoid payment due to pandemic related disruptions. The court frames the dispute in terms of the contract Act (Sections 56 and 65) and the law on frustration and impossibility, discussing several precedents (including Travancore Devaswom Board v. Thanath International and Harikumar G.) to decide whether the pandemic episodes amount to impossibility or mere onerous performance. Ultimately, the court disposes of the petition by permitting payment of arrears in two installments but declines to interfere with Ext. P2 and confirms the contractual obligation to pay.
MACA NO. 1908 OF 2008 & 339/2008 The consolidated Motor Accidents Claims Appeals arise from an award under OP(MV) 937/2004 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, involving K.K. Jameela and multiple insurers and vehicle owners. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in a 23 January 2004 accident when an autorickshaw collided with a lorry; she claimed Rs 1,69,500 in total compensation, reducing her claim to Rs 1,00,000. The Tribunal held the autorickshaw driver (4th respondent) negligent and the 5th respondent insurer (New India Assurance) liable to pay, while other parties contested liability. The 3rd respondent (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) defended on the basis of a police charge-sheet. The High Court, in a first instance, relied on Pazhaniammal’s doctrine that a police charge-sheet is prima facie evidence of negligence under Section 166 MVA 1988, but also considered the scene mahazar. It reversed the Tribunal’s finding, holding that the 1st respondent (lorry driver) was negligent and that the 3rd respondent insurer was liable to indemnify the owner of the lorry. The court re-assessed notional income (Rs.4,500/month), compensation heads (loss of earnings, bystander expenses, disability at 8%, loss of amenities) and increased the overall award by Rs.70,250 (later corrected to Rs.66,520 in a subsequent order dated 22.12.2021). It directed deposition of the enhanced amount with interest at 8% and restoration of such amounts to the claimant. The judgment also discusses applicable precedents such as Rajkumar, Talwinder Singh, Kolavan, Pazhaniammal, and Ramachandrappa to fix liability and quantum.
Madathil Pradeepan, the tenant, challenged eviction orders under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, arising from a Rent Control Petition for eviction filed by Kunnot H Parambath Chathuperi Sameera (landlord). The Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Thalassery, evicted the tenant under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3), which was affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The revision petition (R.C.Rev. No.93 of 2020) before the Kerala High Court contested these orders on grounds including rent arrears, bonafide need, and the second proviso to section 11(3). The landlord contends rent arrears from January 2014 and genuine need to start a business (churidar materials and purdah articles) in the petition shop, asserting lack of other suitable premises in her possession. The tenant counters that the rent was deposited as per a draft after notice, disputes the claimed bona fide need, and argues that the landlord possesses other vacant rooms or suitable premises. The High Court discusses jurisprudence on bona fide need, the burden of proof under the second proviso to section 11(3), and the scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 20, citing Ameer v. B. Amoo, Ashraf v. Shamnas, Rukmini Amma Saradamma, Ubaiba v. Damodaran, Hindustan Petroleum, Thankamony Amma, and Ammeer Hamsa. The Court ultimately dismisses the revision, upholds the eviction order, and grants three months to surrender possession with conditions, including payment of arrears and a license condition.
Petitioner Sophiya K.S., aggrieved by the rejection of her nomination to the Idukki District Police Co-operative Society election scheduled for 5 February 2023, challenges the decision under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Returning Officer found that she was a surety for a loan obtained by another member, Aneesh S. Manayath, and held her disqualified under Rule 44(1)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rule, 1969. The petitioner submits that disqualification under Rule 44(1)(c) can arise only if a notice demanding clearance of the default is issued and, after the date of receipt of such notice, one month passes with no payment; in the present case, she allegedly did not receive any notice. She relies on W.P.(C) No. 3375/2018 and Salim v. Joint Registrar (1998) for the proposition that service of notice is essential to trigger disqualification. The respondent Society contends that the petitioner, as a surety, was in default since March 2022; a demand notice was issued by registered post, and Rule 44(2) clarifies that notice is required when the disqualification occurs after or on the date of election; however, where nomination is rejected for a pre-existing disqualification, notice is not necessary. The court observed that there was a notice, Ext. R2(c), sent to the petitioner; thus the petition could not be entertained at this stage. It concluded that the petition fails, noting that the delivery of notice can be a matter for electoral petition under Section 69(D) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The writ petition is dismissed.
Petitioner K. C. Ali Haji challenged Exhibit P4 demanding 7.5% collection charges and 1% service charges (plus GST) under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, raised by the Deputy Tahsildar (RR) of the Kerala Financial Corporation. The dispute traces to loan defaults of Rs.12,00,000 on 12.07.2013 and Rs.3,50,000 on 12.12.2014, which led to Revenue Recovery proceedings and attachment of properties. After initiating an adalath settlement, the petitioner remitted sums (notably Rs.10,01,000 and Rs.13,49,075) and sought release of documents deposited with the Corporation. Nevertheless, Exhibit P4 (dated 04.06.2022) required payment of Rs.88,565 as RR collection charges, Rs.340 as other charges, and 18% GST on RR charges. The petitioner argued that once the recovery action had begun, and upon settlement, the 7.5% levy was illegitimate and unwarranted. The court analyzed Rule 4(viii) and Rule 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968, including Sub-Rule 3 (effective 06.05.2008) which imposes 1% service charge for institutions (other than Government Departments) that accept direct payments after RR proceedings. Relying on Malabar Organics Ltd. and other precedents, the court held that 7.5% collection charges are unreasonable and ultra vires, while upholding 1% service charges. Exhibit P4 was quashed to the extent of the 7.5% levy; documents must be returned upon payment of the 1% service charge, and the writ petition was allowed accordingly.
WP(C) Nos. 4190 of 2018, 6741 of 2018, 11964 of 2020, 29033 of 2020, 2983 of 2022 & 7976 of 2023 Six interconnected writ petitions arise from a protracted dispute between the Manager and the Headmistress of Mahaganapathy Lower Primary School, Palakkad. The School, under the name of a deity, becomes the stage for a long-running internecine conflict: the Headmistress Saji (appointed 1989; promoted 2008) was suspended in 2017 on charges, while the Manager directed her reinstatement, and later, the Government and educational authorities mulled various inquiries and disciplinary steps. The petitions span attacks on government orders directing reinstatement and directing inquiries into sexual harassment allegations and financial irregularities in the noon-meal program. Central to the petitions is Rule 75 of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), which governs major penalties via a formal inquiry conducted by the educational authorities and requires prior sanction for penalties under Rule 74; Rule 75(9) and (10) govern the inquiry process and its reporting, while Rule 75(1)(b) authorizes appointing authorities to conduct the inquiry. The court emphasizes that the Kerala Education Rules are a complete code and that major penalties require prior sanction, framing the inquiry process as a stage that precedes any punitive action. The judgment disposes of the connected petitions by dismissing some petitions as non-maintainable or premature, while directing consideration of pending revisions and representations under existing statutory mechanisms. Ultimately, the court exercises its supervisory role without delving into merits at the inquiry stage, until proper authorities act on the inquired findings.
Sharafudheen, the second accused in Crime No.2299/2020 of Chavakkad Police Station, challenges the order in SC 836/2021 of the Special Court, Thrissur, denying him regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving purported possession of a commercial quantity of Hashish oil (2170 gm) and 26 boxes, under the NDPS Act (sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29). The police recovered the contraband and recovered an Omni Van (KL-08Y-7946) used to transport the drugs; the 1st accused allegedly disclosed that the hashish was obtained from an intermediary named Rajesh and that the van boxes were manufactured by the petitioner. The petitioner argues he had no direct involvement and that the 1st accused's confessional statements should not form the sole basis for his culpability, noting his custody since 26.08.2021 and the progress of the investigation. The Public Prosecutor contends that the accused assisted in box-making for the conveyance, has an extensive criminal history including 11 earlier crimes and 4 NDPS cases, and that the quantity qualifies as 'commercial quantity', triggering Section 37(1)(b). Citing Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari and other precedents, the court explains that 'reasonable grounds' must be more than prima facie, and that bail under NDPS must satisfy two conjunctive conditions. Finding the twin conditions not satisfied and noting the accused's antecedents, it dismisses the bail application.
WP(C) No.14305 of 2021 (K) The petitioners, described as close relatives and colleagues of Sri Shan Muhammed, who is an accused in Crime No.473/2021 of Pothanicad Police Station, challenge the police investigation measures directed at them. They allege that despite not being charged, and being unrelated to the alleged acts, they have undergone incessant harassment, house raids, and even seizure of the sixth petitioner’s phone, with attempts to install tracking malware. They contend these actions violate constitutional protections and fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy, and demand relief from coercive police conduct during ongoing investigation. Their advocate relies on Supreme Court judgments confirming stringent protection of privacy and civil liberties to argue that state actors must respect individual rights even during investigation. The State responds by branding the petitioners as relatives and associates of the accused, asserting that police visits are routine investigative steps with no illegality, and that the petition should be dismissed. It is noted that the accused Shan Muhammed has been apprehended and charge-sheet filed, and the court records that there is insufficient material before it to grant relief beyond refusing merits-based intervention. Ultimately, the court disposes of the writ petition, directing no adjudication on the merits but granting liberty to pursue remedies before competent authorities, including the State Police Chief, if any complaint exists.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 692 of 2023) was heard by the Kerala High Court, led by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan. The petitioners, six accused persons, challenge CC 260/2020, arising from Crime No. 1027/2019 of Palarivattom Police Station, under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 143, 147, 148 r/w 149. The prosecution case alleges that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted and wrongfully confined the victim. The petitioners contend that the dispute has been amicably settled and the victim has filed an affidavit supporting quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded the matter is settled. The court relies on the Supreme Court’s formulations in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to delineate the scope of Section 482 CrPC: quashing is permissible for non-compoundable offences with a civil character where the entire dispute is resolved, with caveats for heinous offences, offences under special statutes, or crimes like murder or rape. The court also emphasizes considering the accused’s antecedents and conduct. Finding the dispute private and the settlement acceptable, the court allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes CC 260/2020 against the petitioners.
This writ petition, filed by St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Attinkunnu (represented by its Trustee) and its Assistant Vicar, seeks protection for the life of the second petitioner and guarantee of unfettered religious services in three kurisupallies (St. Ignatius Kurisupalli, Vettimoodu; St. George Kurisupalli, Athanickal; and St. Thomas Kurisupalli, Nedungodu) under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The petition alleges obstruction, trespass, and coercive acts by members of the Jacobite faction ( respondents 7–14) hindering Holy Mass and ecclesiastical duties. It relies on a lineage of litigation tracing back to a 1994 suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC with a 1998 decree holding the church to be administered under the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Church, and a 2020 Special Court decree (Ext.P4) restraining interference and directing the Orthodox administration to conduct services. The petition contends that the apex court’s directions in KS Varghese v. St. Peter’s & Paul’s Church bind the State and police to ensure compliance with Ext.P3 and Ext.P4, and that non‑enforcement would violate binding orders and threaten public order. After hearing submissions, the Court upholds the petition, directing police to provide adequate protection to the 2nd petitioner and parishioners, and to implement the extant judgments within two months, so as to permit uninterrupted religious rites without let or hindrance from the opposing faction.
This is a criminal revision petition under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. filed by Boby John challenging the concurrent conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No. 189/2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perumbavoor, and its affirmation by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha. The case arose from a loan of Rs.70,000 on 19 January 2016, evidenced by a cheque dated 30 January 2016 that bounced for lack of funds. After demand notice, the complainant pressed a complaint under section 142 NI Act. Trial evidence included PW1, PW2, Exts. P1–P7; the defence produced DW1–DW2 and Exts. X1, X2. The trial court convicted the accused under section 138 NI Act and sentenced him to two months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.70,000, with the fine to be paid as compensation to the complainant; default imprisonment followed. The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction while replacing the substantive sentence with a one-day term until the Court’s raise. In revision, the petitioner contends that Exts. X1 and X2 show he paid Rs.15,000 on 28 April 2016 and that Rs.45,000 more was paid, amounting to discharge of the liability. The High Court, invoking its limited revisional jurisdiction, dismisses the petition, relying on precedents that restrict re‑appreciation of evidence and uphold the trial court’s findings, and then directs the petitioner to surrender on 13 January 2023 to undergo the sentence and pay the fine, with execution deferred.
BAIL APPL. NO. 556 OF 2023 This is a regular bail application (Cr.P.C. Section 439) filed by the sole accused, Suni @ Sunil, in crime no. 1062/2022 of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur. The prosecution story relates to threats allegedly made by the petitioner against the de facto complainant, an approver in murder case crime no. 1229/2017, by calling the complainant on a mobile connection belonging to the petitioner’s wife. The First Information Statement (FIS) recorded led to registration of offences under IPC section 195A and Kerala Police Act section 120(O). A central legal dispute concerns whether a police officer can register a crime under Section 195A IPC, a provision introduced in 2006 and classified as cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable, with jurisdiction in the court trying the offence of giving false evidence. The petitioner contends that registration under 195A should be forestalled or requires action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 IPC, with reliance on Basir-ul-Hug v. State of West Bengal (1953) and on Kerala High Court decisions including Radhakrishnan P. v. State of Kerala. The Public Prosecutor counters by affirming the statutory classification and the interpretation given in Radhakrishnan P. This Court reviews sections 195, 195A, 340, and related provisions, noting that the cognizance of 195A by police is, in law, problematic. The petition is ultimately allowed, on bail with stringent conditions, while keeping open the approver’s right under Section 195A and the state’s right to seek bail cancellation for breaches.
